Legal Opinion
Earl v. Bowen
California Supreme Court
Decided May 17, 1905No. L.A. No. 1663PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to restrain the defendant officers of the city of Los Angeles from giving out public printing and advertising to defendant, the Times-Mirror Company, under a contract between that company and the city. Demurrers to the complaint were interposed for insufficiency of facts and because of uncertainty and ambiguity in the complaint and that plaintiff has not legal capacity to bring the action. The demurrers were sustained, and plaintiff declining to amend, judgment passed for defendants, from which plaintiff appeals.
Briefly stated, the complaint shows: That prior to May 31,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Hitchcock v. GalvestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas CityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- In re the Estate of JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Kramrath v. . City of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hopping v. Council of City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Davis v. City of Santa AnaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Williams v. City of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Storke v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Turner v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915