Legal Opinion

City of Los Angeles v. Riley

California Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1936No. S. F. 15672PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

The City of Los Angeles, by this proceeding in mandamus, seeks to compel respondent state officials to transfer to the city certain funds collected under the terms of Statutes of 1935, page 1312, and now on deposit in the state treasury to the credit of the Motor Vehicle License Fee Fund, as expressly provided in section 9 (b) of the above-mentioned act. Respondents have refused to make such transfer until the validity of said section of said act has been established and have made their return to the petition by way of general demurrer.

The constitutionality of the act, generally, has been…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Ingels v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. People v. County of MarinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss.California Supreme Court · 1926
  5. City of Oakland v. GarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. GuardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  3. County of Los Angeles v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. People v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. City of Los Angeles v. Post War Public Works Review BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945

9 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