Legal Opinion

Beatty v. Hughes

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 24, 1943No. Civ. 14202PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J. pro tem.

In this proceeding in mandate, the petitioner, as the Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, seeks to compel the respondent, as Acting Purchasing Agent of that county, to purchase for her use as recorder a certain machine which she has requisitioned. The respondent has refused to purchase this machine on the ground that petitioner’s proposed use of it is not authorized by law. The Supreme Court has twice accepted such a proceeding as a proper mode of obtaining a determination whether the purpose for which an officer seeks to purchase supplies is a lawful purpose (Kerr v.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of JessupCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Seaboard Acceptance Corp. v. ShayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Anderson v. I. M. Jameson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Loew's Inc. v. ByramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Cady v. PurserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Maryland Department of Natural Resources v. HirschCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  2. State v. NorenUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Ostrander v. Brown (In Re Housey)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 2009
  4. Anderson v. HandleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Central Ceiling & Parttiton, Inc v. Department of CommerceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002

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