Legal Opinion
People Ex Rel. Hardacre v. Davidson
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 27, 1905No. Civ. No. 108PublishedCited by 4 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] We have this day affirmed the judgment in this action as to defendant Hersom. (See, ante, p. 96, 83 P. 159.) The present appeal is by the other defendants, on grounds not presented or considered on Hersom's appeal. Here, as there, it is conceded that under section 56 of the County Government Act, as amended in 1901 (Stats. 1901, p. 685, c. 234), but one constable could legally be elected at the general election held November 4, 1902, if the evidence shows that…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lee v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Russell v. McDowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Clavey v. LordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McPhail v. BuellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hayden v. CollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Terry v. SencindiverWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1969
- Robinson v. McAbeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- In re Sugar Creek Local School DistrictPutnam County Court of Common Pleas · 1962
- People Ex Rel. Hardacre v. ReaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905