Legal Opinion

Foucht v. Hirni

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1922No. Civ. No. 3836PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel respondent, as auditor of Tulare County, to issue to the petitioner Foucht a warrant for $182, claimed to be due the latter as compensation for certain work done by him in assisting the county treasurer under a contract of employment made by him with the board of supervisors pursuant to section 4041c of the Political Code ■—a new section added in 1921. (Stats. 1921, p. 220.) Respondent, who has demurred to the petition, attacks the constitutionality of this code section upon a number of grounds; and whether this new law is constitutional…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Hellman v. ShoultersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Coulter v. PoolCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. People ex rel. Daniels v. HenshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Doughterty v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Spreckels v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Winsor v. HuntArizona Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Main v. Claremont Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Holtzendorff v. Housing AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Pacific Finance Corp. v. City of LynwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

6 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