Miller v. Dunn
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.-
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
In 1880 the legislature passed an act-entitled “An act to promote drainage,” which was approved by the governor April 23, 1880. (Stats. 1880, p. 123.)
In the passage of this act, all the proceedings necessary to the effective enactment of a law by the legislature were *464had; and it was regularly and duly approved by the-governor.
According to the provisions of this act, “ Drainage District No. 1” was regularly organized,, and public work under it commenced. The directors of the district, after proposals for bids, let contracts to- different parties to do* various parts of the work,—as they were…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- State v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- Manly v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
- Hoag v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Nougues v. DouglassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- People v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Olson v. CoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Kaiser v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- City of Pasadena v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Mullan v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.