Legal Opinion
Ferrante v. Fish & Game Commission
California Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 1946No. S. F. 17331; S. F. 17332; S. F. 17333; S. F. 17334; S. F. 17335; S. F. 17356PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*367DOOLING, J. pro tem.
The six petitions herein considered present common questions. The several petitioners are seeking by writ of mandate to compel the respondent, Fish and Game Commission of the State of California, to grant to each of them a permit to take and use pilchard sardines during the 1946-1947 season for the purpose of reducing them into meal in plants severally owned and to be operated by the petitioners.
The petitions all contain similar, and in many respects identical, allegations. It appears therefrom that on October 27, 1945, the respondent adopted the following rules affecting…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Continental Baking Co. v. WoodringSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Werner v. Southern California Associated NewpapersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- United States v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Siskiyou County Farm Bureau v. Department of Fish & WildlifeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- County of Ventura v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- People v. International Steel Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1951
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.