Legal Opinion

Arnold v. Hopkins

California Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 1928No. Docket No. S.F. 12764PublishedCited by 23 opinions

R. C. McAllaster, City Attorney of Pasadena, for Intervener.

1Opinion of the CourtRichards, J.

The questions involved in this proceeding are presented upon the application of the petitioner herein for the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the respondents herein to desist from doing a certain series of official acts looking to the preparation, printing, and procuring of certain statements and other printed forms and , blanks which are to issue preparatory to the assessment and collection of taxes for the current year upon certain kinds of taxable property to be hereinafter described, and which acts it is alleged the respondents are preparing and threatening to do in conformity…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fay v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Yosemite Lumber Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Washburn v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Abbey v. Board of DirectorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. SaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Roehm v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Eisley v. MohanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Houge v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955

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

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

Powered by the Exa API