Legal Opinion

Ingels v. Riley

California Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1936No. S. F. 15596PublishedCited by 70 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondent, as state controller, to issue his warrant to the state treasurer authorizing the latter to pay a printing claim incurred by petitioner as director of the department of motor vehicles. The purpose of the proceeding is to secure an interpretation and to test the constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle License Pee Act. (Stats, of 1935, chap. 362, p. 1312.)

The precise problem involved arose under the following circumstances. By the terms of the act, the administration thereof is placed in petitioner’s department. Petitioner interpreted…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Kane v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Vernor v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Matter of Application of SchulerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by70 opinions

  1. Weatherford v. City of San RafaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Ainsworth v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Kirkwood v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Union Oil Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963

65 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