Legal Opinion

City & County of San Francisco v. Boyd

California Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1941No. S. F. 16430PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOORE, J., pro tem.

This is an original proceeding for a writ of mandate whereby petitioners seek to compel the respondent to certify to the petitioners that"there is a sufficient unencumbered balance in a fund that may legally be used for the proposed expenditure of the sum of $100,000 for the services of one Purcell, a civil engineer. The municipality seeks by a contract to procure the services of Purcell for a period of five years to aid in the solution of traffic and transit problems. The certification sought was also to cover the maximum additional sums that may be expended in the fiscal…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. McBean v. City of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. West Coast Advertising Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. City of Pasadena v. CharlevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  5. In Re City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. City of Glendale v. TrondsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. City of Grass Valley v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. City of Inglewood-Los Angeles County Civic Center Authority v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Denio v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Professional Engineers v. Department of TransportationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997

29 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