Legal Opinion

City of Oakland v. Hart

California Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1900No. S.F. No. 2379PublishedCited by 6 opinions

PETITION for writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent from trying a cause in the Superior Court of Alameda County. E. C. Hart, Acting Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. W. A. Dow, City Attorney of Oakland, and R. Y. Hayne, for Petitioners.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This is an original petition in this court for a writ of prohibition prohibiting and restraining the respondent from any further acting as judge in a certain action pending in the superior court of the county of Alameda, in which the Contra Costa Water Company is plaintiff and these petitioners are defendants.

The facts necessary to be stated are these: The said action of the Contra Costa Water Company against these petitioners (the City of Oakland et al.) was brought to restrain the defendants therein from enforcing a certain ordinance fixing the rates to be charged for water…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lillie v. TrentmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Field v. MarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  3. Bates v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People v. EbeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  2. State v. ReedNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Regents of University of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Hoglan v. GeddesWyoming Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Pueblo v. DíazSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1912

1 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