Thomason v. Ruggles
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the head-notes and opinions.
1Opinion of the CourtMyrick, J.
On the 1st of April, 1872, the legislature passed a law relating to street improvements in the city and county of San Francisco. This act, from section 4 to section 13 inclusive, provided a general plan of street work by contract, such contract to be entered into and the work peformed before the collection of the money. This act was a portion of the charter of the city and county, and was in force until the constitution went into effect, January 1, 1880. That constitution contained the following clause, viz.:—
“No public work or improvement of any description whatsoever shall be done or made…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McDonald v. PattersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by10 opinions
- State ex rel. Adams v. HerriedSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
- Southern Pac. Co. v. BartineU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1909
- Hayne v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Bradner v. VasquezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- North Providence v. Aetna Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.