Legal Opinion

Daugherty v. Riley

California Supreme Court

Decided July 17, 1934No. S. F. 15135PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

This is a proceeding in mandamus to compel the respondent, state controller, to audit and approve certain claims in favor of the division of corporations by resorting first to the corporation commission fund, then to the general fund in the state treasury, and for general relief. The return to the alternative writ is a general demurrer to the petition.

The budget enactment of 1933 (Stats. 1933, p. 814) provides : “Item 85: For the support of the division of corporations, department of investment, six hundred ninety-eight thousand, six hundred seventy-four and 16/100 dollars, payable from the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Riley v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Callaghan v. BoyceArizona Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Railroad Commission v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Valdes v. CoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  2. Gillum v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. California Association for Safety Education v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  4. In Re HatchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Hospital & Healthsystem Ass'n v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

29 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