Hull v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
Application for a writ of prohibition. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Per curiam
The demurrer to the petition in this proceeding must be sustained. The petition alleges that the Superior Court “ has recognized, does recognize, and, unless prohibited, will continue to recognize and take judicial notice of the acts of W. E. Hopping,” who claims to act as sheriff and tax collector of Shasta County.
Prohibition is not available as a remedy to prevent the acts of a de facto or de jure ministerial officer (People v. Board of Election, 54 Cal. 404; Le Conte v. Berkeley, 57 Cal. 269); nor to prevent judicial acts already done.
The right of one claiming to act as sheriff of a county…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People ex rel. Taylor v. Bd. of Election Comm'rsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Le Conte v. Trustees & MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by8 opinions
- Havemeyer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Traffic Truck Sales Co. v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Valentine v. Police CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- State ex rel. Merriam v. RossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Plocher v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.