Ostrander v. City of Richmond
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in 'the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
This appeal presents but one question for an answer by this court. That question relates to the interpretation of the word “may” as employed in a statute. The trustees of the city of Richmond passed a resolution of intention to pave Macdonald Avenue in said city. After the proceedings usual in such matters, respondents Edgar A. Mizner & Co. were awarded the contract for the work. Appellant raises no objection to the regularity of the form of the proceedings leading up to and including the letting of this contract, except that the jurisdiction of the board of trustees to order the work is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Otsego County Bank v. Board of Supervisors of Otsego CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- City of Galena v. AmySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- State ex rel. Clark v. Board of County CommissionersNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
- Village of Kent v. United States ex rel. DanaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
- Kreling v. MullerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kirkpatrick v. W. R. W.California Court of Appeal · 1971
- Marshall v. FooteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Chaney v. Los Angeles County Peace Officers' Retirement BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- In Re Marriage of BanksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- City of Alameda v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.