Legal Opinion

Mullan v. State

California Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 1896No. S. F. No. 442PublishedCited by 51 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Charles W. Slack, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.

Appeal from the judgment entered upon failure to amend after demurrer sustained to the-complaint.

The complaint is in two counts. The first count alleges the following facts: That between the twelfth day of December, 1878, and the first day of May, 1891, the-plaintiff rendered services to the defendant, at its special instance and request, as the agent of said state, in act*581ing in its behalf in the matter of recovering certain moneys paid by the state to the United States under the provisions of a-certain act of Congress, approved August 5, 1861, entitled, “An act to-provide increased revenue…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Miller v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  2. People v. ToalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Brooks v. FischerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Cole v. SegravesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Whiting v. TownsendCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. County of San Diego v. California Water & Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  2. American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  3. French v. SenateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Livermore v. BealCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Loranger v. NadeauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

46 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