Legal Opinion

Collins v. Riley

California Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1944No. S. F. 17019PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

Petitioner, an assemblyman, seeks a writ of mandate to compel the State Controller to approve a claim for traveling expenses, and to draw a warrant for the amount so approved, in accordance with section 352 of the Political Code which, as amended in 1943, provides that “all Members of the Legislature when attending regular, special or extraordinary session of the Legislature shall be entitled to receive in addition to their salaries, their actual necessary traveling expenses. ’ ’ No question is raised as to the form of the claim or as to the necessity or propriety of petitioner’s expenditure…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. In re the Bonds of the Madera Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. People v. Western Fruit GrowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Fitts v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. SaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. California Housing Finance Agency v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Geiger v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957

60 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