Legal Opinion
Metropolitan Water District v. Toll
California Supreme Court
Decided August 6, 1934No. S. F. 15075PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
Mandamus to compel the respondents as treasurer and controller of the petitioner district to transfer the sum of $352,800 from the “Colorado River Waterworks Bonds Election 1931 Fund” to the “Colorado River Waterworks Bonds Election 1931 Interest and Sinking Fund” pursuant to an ordinance of the board of directors of the district, adopted November 17, 1933, requiring them to do so. A general demurrer to the petition has been filed as a return to the alternative writ.
The district was organized and is functioning under the act of 1927. (Stats. 1927, p. 694.) On September 11, 1931, the board of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Des Moines Gas Co. v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Merchants National Bank v. Escondido Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Peery v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- O'Farrell v. County of SonomaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Lehi City v. Meiling, City RecorderUtah Supreme Court · 1935
- County of San Bernardino v. WayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Beaumont v. FaubusSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
- State School Building Finance Committee v. BettsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- City of Burbank v. Metropolitan Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.