People Ex Rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist.
California Supreme Court
The. facts are stated in the opinion- of the court. U„ S. Webb, Attorney-General, Arthur C. Huston, Hudson Grant, and C. E. McLaughlin, for Appellant. Devlin & Devlin, and George & Hinsdale, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This is a proceeding in quo warranto, brought under section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section authorizes the attorney-general in the name of the people of the state, upon his own initiative, or upon that of a private person, to prosecute an action against any person "who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this state.”
In 1905 the legislature passed an act entitled: “An act to create a drainage district to be called ‘Sacramento Drainage District,’ to promote drainage therein; to provide for the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Spring Valley Water Works v. SchottlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Hibben v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Ex parte LiddellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by87 opinions
- Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Gray v. Reclamation District No. 1500California Supreme Court · 1917
- Hopping v. Council of City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Ray v. ParkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.