Mallett v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1DissentBlease, Acting P. J.
I dissent.
This case does not arise under Government Code section 680731 and is, in any event, moot. The majority opinion avoids these difficulties by assuming them away.
First, on the substantive question, the opinion assumes the answer to the predicate question, whether petitioners, judges of the Stockton Municipal Court District (the Judges), were authorized by section 68073 to dismiss the district’s elected marshal (Croci) as court security officer. Section 68073 empowers a court to remedy the failure of a board of supervisors to provide it with supplies, facilities or attendants necessary…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Simpson v. HiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Villanazul v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Fairchild v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- People v. HawesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Ex parte WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.