Riley v. Forbes
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
The petitioner, as controller of the state of California, instituted this proceeding in mandate to compel the respondents, as members of and constituting the State Board of Accountancy, to account to the petitioner for and to pay into the state treasury all moneys received by the respondents and alleged by the petitioner to be moneys belonging to the state during the months of July, August, September, October, and November, 1923.
There is no dispute as to the facts. The only question for determination is as to the legal obligation of the respondents to account for the moneys so received and to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- United States v. PhilbrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- People Ex Rel. Einsfeld v. . MurrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Ex parte LucasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Bateman v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- In Re WilliamsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- County of Los Angeles v. FrisbieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Evans v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.