Lukens v. Nye
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Malcolm C. Glenn, Deputy Attorney-General, for Appellant. G. Russell Lukens, A. A. De Ligne, and Hiram W. Johnson, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This is an action in mandamus to compel the controller to issue a warrant on the state treasurer to the plaintiffs for the sum of $22,808.15, being the second installment of the amount appropriated to John Mullan by the act of the legislature approved March 22, 1905 (Stats. 1905, p. 791), in satisfaction of his claim against the state. The plaintiffs are his assignees.
The act appropriates $45,616.30, in payment of said claim, and declares that “the controller is hereby authorized and directed to draw his warrant for the said sum and the treasurer of state is hereby authorized and directed to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Harpending v. HaightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- People Ex Rel. Satterlee v. . Board of PoliceNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- State v. HolderMississippi Supreme Court · 1898
- Martin v. ZellerbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Fowler v. PeirceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- People v. KnowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Boren v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Dare v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Harbor v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.