Pacheco v. Beck
California Supreme Court
Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate. The defendant was Secretary of State. The abstract “ a” and the statements “ b ” and “ c,” appended to the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace, were contained in the petition for the writ, and the two latter were inserted as reasons why the Secretary of State had failed to estimate the vote according to the abstract “ a.” The other facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace.
Read the full summary
Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate. The defendant was Secretary of State. The abstract “ a” and the statements “ b ” and “ c,” appended to the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace, were contained in the petition for the writ, and the two latter were inserted as reasons why the Secretary of State had failed to estimate the vote according to the abstract “ a.” The other facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace. The defendant demurred to the petition.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
The statute in defining the jurisdiction and power of Boards of Supervisors, provides that they shall have power “ to establish, abolish, and change election precincts, and to appoint inspectors and judges of elections, -canvass all election returns, declare the result and issue certificates thereof.” (Pol. Code, sec. 4046.) Each of these several duties are incumbent on those Boards as Boards of Supervisors. In canvassing election returns they do not become Boards of Canvassers, limited as to their powers and the period of their existence, but the same Board that…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Wright v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- State ex rel. Smith v. TheusSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- Kunkle v. ColemanIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- Cerini v. De LongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- People Ex Rel. Hicks v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.