Legal Opinion

Hollister v. Kingsbury

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 2, 1933No. Docket No. 4716PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County directing a writ of mandamus to issue requiring the appellant to file the petitioner’s application for a permit to prospect for oil and gas in state lands pursuant to Statutes of California of 1921, chapter 303, page 404. The question which is here involved is whether an urgency amendment to section 4 of that statute, which was adopted by the legislature in 1929 (Stats. 1929, chap. 7, p. 11; 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws, p. 3456, Act 6341), withdrawing certain state lands from exploration for oil and gas…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Naudzius v. LahrMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Kadderly v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Caseday v. LindstromOregon Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Gentile v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Arkansas Tax Commission v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Davis v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. People v. CambaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. Prescott v. Secretary of CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  4. Stockburger v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Livingston v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

5 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