Legal Opinion

Mahoney v. City & County of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1927No. Docket No. S.F. 11177PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

This action was inaugurated in the court below by plaintiff, Margaret Mahoney, a resident taxpayer of the City and County of San Francisco. The prayer of the amended complaint was for a decree of the court directing the delivery into court for cancellation of two certain instruments of even date purporting to be leases entered into by the Spring Valley Water Company, a corporation, and the City and County of San Francisco, upon the ground and for the reason that said instruments were in violation of article XI, section 18, state constitution, and article XVI, section 29, charter of the City…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McBean v. City of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. State v. McCauleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. In Re City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Doland v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Arthur v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Stanson v. MottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Metropolitan Water Dist. v. MarquardtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  3. City of Los Angeles v. OffnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Dean v. KuchelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Quantification Settlement Agreement CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

30 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