Legal Opinion

Samuels v. Hite

California Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1950No. L. A. 21445PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

Petitioner, a qualified elector and taxpayer of Belvedere Township, seeks mandate to require respondent Hite, as registrar of voters of Los Angeles County, to omit the name of Frank F. Solis, as candidate for the office of justice of the peace of the Class A justices’ court of Belvedere Township, from the official ballot. Petitioner contends that Solis does not have the qualification for office prescribed by section 159a of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have concluded that this contention is correct.

Section 159a (Code Civ. Proc.) provides, “No person shall be eligible to the office of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Searcy v. GrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Sheehan v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. People v. . PurdyNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  4. People ex rel. Marshall v. LeonardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Ward v. CrowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Younger v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  2. People v. MorseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  3. Walter v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports2004
  5. Samuels v. HiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API