Legal Opinion

Cunningham v. Shanklin

California Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1882No. 8,118PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Application for writ of mandamus.

1Opinion of the Court

Morrison, C. J.:

This case is brought before us on an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that contests having arisen in the office of the Surveyor General, between the plaintiff and other parties, respecting their rights to purchase certain lands belonging to the State, the same were referred to the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District for determination, under Sections 3414, 3415, and 3416 of the Political Code. In pursuance of the order of reference, the plaintiff commenced actions in said District Court for the purpose of having such conflicting claims determined,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Laugenour v. ShanklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Wright v. LaugenourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cecil v. ClarkWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. v. Douglas CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Wrinkle v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Byrd v. ReichertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Baettenhaussen v. Borda KlugkistSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1938

1 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