Board of Osteopathic Examiners v. Riley
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate requiring the State Controller to settle the accounts of the Board of Osteopathic Examiners and to draw his warrants for salaries. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
RICHARDS, J., pro tem.
This is an application for a writ of mandate directed to the respondent herein, as state controller, requiring him to do certain acts relating to the accounts and claims of the petitioners, acting as a Board of Osteopathic Examiners under and by virtue of the provisions of the so-called “Osteopathic Act,” an initiative measure adopted by the people at the general election held on November 7, 1922. The application herein is in two counts, in the first of which it is demanded that the respondent, as state controller, examine and settle the account of the said Board of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Railroad Commission v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
3Cited by9 opinions
- White v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Riley v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Dorsey v. PetrottCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1940
- Riley v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Veterans of Foreign Wars v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.