Legal Opinion

Rooney v. Snow

California Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1900No. S.F. No. 1629PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

In April, 1898, the city council of the city of Oakland passed an ordinance, the first section of which reads as follows: “The sum of one thousand dollars is hereby appropriated from the general fund of the city of Oakland for the year 1897-98 to pay the claim and demand of Owen E. Rooney for moneys erroneously collected by the city of Oakland from said Owen F. Rooney and paid by him under protest as liquor license for the saloon and restaurant kept by said Owen F. Rooney at the end of the Oakland pier.” By the second section of the said ordinance the auditor is directed' to draw his warrant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brumagim v. TillinghastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Schmidt v. WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Phelan v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Maxwell v. County of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
  2. Stewart Law & Collection Co. v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Pacific Coast Co. v. WellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Hanford Gas & Power Co. v. City of HanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. C.I.T. Corporation v. HawleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API