Hinkley v. Wells
California Court of Appeal
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the attachment of an amended affidavit to a filed initiative petition. Denied. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.
Petitioner Hinkley, as a registered elector of Contra Costa County, circulated in that county a peti tion proposing a new law in the form of an initiative measure to be submitted to the electors of the state under section 1 of article IV of the constitution. Petitioner Kurtz was one of the qualified electors of Contra Costa County who signed one of such petitions. When the petition was filed with respondent as county clerk of Contra Costa County a defective affidavit was attached—defective in that the circulator stated therein that he was a “resident” of said county, whereas the constitution…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Rey v. BarclayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Fawkes v. City of BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Pittman v. CarstenbrookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Lundy v. LettunichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Burnham v. HaysCalifornia Supreme Court · 1853
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gage v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Whittemore v. SeydelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Willett v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Hartman v. KenyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Gage v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944