Legal Opinion

Beach v. Von Detten

California Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1903No. Sac. No. 1173PublishedCited by 24 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

COOPER, C.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment denying his application for a writ of mandate agahfst defendant as county auditor. Plaintiff is a constable of Stockton Township, in said county. He demanded a warrant for his salary as constable, amounting to $85.50, under the County Government Act of 1897. Defendant contends that he is only entitled to a warrant for $64.11, being his salary under the County Government Act of 1901, as amended.

The question to be determined is as to the constitutionality of the act of 1901 in so far is it affects the question of plaintiff’s salary. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex parte LiddellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Lewis v. DunneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. People Ex Rel. State Board of Harbor Commissioners v. MullenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. People v. DobbinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. People ex rel. Attorney-General v. ParvinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. California Housing Finance Agency v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. People v. Western Fruit GrowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. People Ex Rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Evans v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Law v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

19 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