Legal Opinion
People Ex Rel. Smith v. Gunn
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 10, 1916No. Civ. No. 1521PublishedCited by 6 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Napa County. Henry C. Gesford, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Action in quo warranta involving the office of auditor of the county of Napa. The board of supervisors of said county, on January 5, 1885, duly passed ordinance No. 9, section 1 of which was as follows:
“Section 1. The duties of the offices of auditor and recorder of Napa county are hereby consolidated, and the person elected to fill such offices must discharge all the duties pertaining to both such offices.”
The court found that ordinance No. 9 “is still in full force and effect, except in the particulars hereinafter stated.” It is then found that, on November 10, 1915, the said board duly…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People ex rel. Sweet v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Christy v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- People v. WellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- People ex rel. Rynerson v. KelseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Rosborough v. BoardmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Anderson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Kelly v. KaneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Anderson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Anderson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Opinion No. (1999), California Attorney General Reports1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.