Legal Opinion
County of Los Angeles v. Jones
California Supreme Court
Decided May 22, 1939No. S. F. 16187PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
A rehearing was ordered for the purpose of giving counsel an opportunity to discuss the method of spreading the refunding assessments under the act here involved, and to give consideration to the contention that the interpretation of section 31 thereof (Stats. 1937, p. 2381), announced in our previous decision would make multiple district refunding proceedings unworkable and therefore unavailing for the purpose intended by the legislature.
Our prior opinion with some modification is adopted in part as follows:
" The County of Los Angeles seeks the issuance of the writ of mandamus to compel the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chesebro v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Merced County v. Helm & NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Mulville v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- East Bay Municipal Utility District v. GarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- County of Los Angeles v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Market Street Railway Co. v. Calalifornia State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Rombotis v. FinkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Market St. Ry. Co. v. Cal. St. Bd. Equal.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- In Re Los Angeles Lumber Products Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1942
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.