Cunning v. Carr
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The plaintiff had judgment against the defendants in the trial court upon an action instituted to obtain a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the said defendants to pay certain claims against the county of Humboldt theretofore passed upon and allowed by the board of supervisors of said county. Prom this judgment the intervener appeals.
The facts of the case as disclosed by the transcript, in substance, are as follows: That for some considerable period of time prior to the beginning of this case the district attorney of the county of Humboldt, under and by virtue of the provisions of section…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Coulter v. PoolCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- County of Yolo v. JoyceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Logan v. ShieldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Humiston v. ShafferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Forward v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hicks v. Bd. of Supervisors of Orange Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1977
- Leymel v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Cunning v. County of HumboldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Niceley v. County of MaderaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- McClung v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.