Bowring v. Dominguez
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
3 Cal.2d 167 (1935)
LYNDEN BOWRING, Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT DOMINGUEZ, as City Clerk, etc., et al., Respondents.
S. F. No. 15413.
Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
April 16, 1935.
Rush & Bierne, Bernard Potter, Jarvis R. Wilder and Lynden Bowring, in pro. per., for Petitioner.
W. C. Dalzell, Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, and Leon T. David, Assistant City Attorney, for Respondents.
CURTIS, J.
Proceedings in mandate against the City Council and City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles. The practical effect of granting the petition would be to declare that the petitioner was nominated at the recent…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Searcy v. GrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Sheehan v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Ward v. CrowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Bowring v. DominguezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Walther v. RaboltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866