Foucht v. Hirni
California Court of Appeal
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
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Hellman v. ShoultersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Coulter v. PoolCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- People ex rel. Daniels v. HenshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Doughterty v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Spreckels v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Winsor v. HuntArizona Supreme Court · 1926
- Main v. Claremont Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Holtzendorff v. Housing AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Pacific Finance Corp. v. City of LynwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.