Legal Opinion
East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Hadsell
California Supreme Court
Decided August 24, 1925No. S. F. No. 11669PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOUSER, J., pro tem.
The proceeding which is involved herein had for its purpose the obtaining of a judgment declaring valid certain bonds authorized to be issued at an election held pursuant to the provisions of a statute known as the Municipal Utility District Act (Stats. 1921, p. 245). Judgment was rendered in favor of the validity of the bonds, and the defendants have appealed therefrom.
No question is raised regarding the regularity of the proceedings up to the time of the adoption of the ordinance calling the election for the authorization of the issuance of the bonds; but appellants urge…
2Cases cited69 opinions
- Kepner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Douglass v. County of PikeSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Carroll County v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- County of Cass v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Davis v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Wheatley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- County of Sonoma v. SanbornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Hevelone v. City of BeatriceNebraska Supreme Court · 1931
- Yribarne v. County of San BernardinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.