Legal Opinion

Country of Plumas v. Wheeler

California Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1906No. Sac. No. 1361PublishedCited by 44 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and L. N. Peter, District Attorney, for Appellant. Cheney & Massey, Campbell, Metson & Campbell, and W. H. Metson, for Respondents.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, entered upon the plaintiff’s failure to amend its complaint after a general demurrer thereto had been sustained. The action was brought by the county of Plumas to recover the sum of one thousand three hundred dollars, alleged to be due it from defendants as a license fee for conducting the business of raising, grazing, herding, and pasturing sheep and lambs within the county. The plaintiff’s claim is based upon an ordinance adopted by the county supervisors in January, 1902, and set forth in full in the complaint. The enactment is…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Holden v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. In Re SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. In re SicCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Town of Santa Monica v. GuidingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Burks v. Poppy Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Emerson College v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  4. United Business Commission v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. Matter of Application of SchulerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

39 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