Legal Opinion
American River Flood Control District v. Sweet
California Supreme Court
Decided February 5, 1932No. Docket No. S.F. 14466PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondents, who are the president and treasurer respectively of the petitioner district, to sign and countersign certain bonds authorized to be issued and sold by the district.
The petitioner, American River Flood Control District, came into being and is functioning by reason of a special act of the legislature (Stats. 1927, p. 1596; amended, Stats. 1929, p. 861).
Prior to June 4, 1931, the petitioner caused the necessary surveys, drawings and plans to be made and prepared under the direction of the engineer of the district to provide…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gray v. Reclamation District No. 1500California Supreme Court · 1917
- Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Reclamation District No. 1500 v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- In Re Sutter-Butte By-Pass Assessment No. 6California Supreme Court · 1923
- Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Baldwin v. County of TehamaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Beckley v. Reclamation BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Paterno v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Robbins v. Sonoma County Flood Control & Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Bank of Hawaii v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.