Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Landsborough v. Kelly

California Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1934No. S. F. 15050PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This is a petition for a writ of mandate. Petitioner brought this proceeding as a citizen, resident, elector and taxpayer of the state of California and the county of Kern, to compel respondents to take certain action with respect to a highway construction project. Respondents are Earl Lee Kelly, Director of Public Works; O. H. Purcell, Chief of the Division of Highways and State Highway Engineer, and G. T. McCoy, Assistant State Highway Engineer.

In April, 1932, R. E. Pierce, one of the district engineers of the division of highways, recommended the construction of a portion of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wood v. StrotherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Inglin v. HoppinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Tulare Water Co. v. State Water CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Stanley-Taylor Co. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Phyle v. DuffySupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Charles L. Harney, Inc. v. DurkeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Schram Construction, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. In Re McDonoughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Pacific Bell v. California State & Consumer Services AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API