Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Freeman v. Barnum

California Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1901No. S.F. No. 1614PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the defendant, who is auditor of Fresno county, to draw a warrant in favor of the petitioner for certain installments of salary alleged to be due him as assistant district attorney of said county.

In the County Government Act of 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 346), in section 25, it is provided as follows: “The boards of supervisors, in their respective counties, have jurisdiction and power, under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law: .... Subd. 36. To authorize the district attorney to appoint an assistant district attorney,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Ford v. Board of State Harbor CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Tulare County v. MayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Eagle Cliff Fishing Co. v. McGowanOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Koehler v. Holt Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
  3. English v. EnglishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. La Rue v. KempfMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
  5. Servente v. MurrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API