Legal Opinion

Thomason v. Ruggles

California Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1886No. 11184PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. McDonald v. PattersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Adams v. HerriedSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Southern Pac. Co. v. BartineU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1909
  3. Hayne v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Bradner v. VasquezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  5. North Providence v. Aetna Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916

5 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