Legal Opinion

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Riley

California Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1937No. S. F. 15795PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Petitioner, the State Compensation Insurance Fund, seeks by this proceeding in mandamus, to compel the respondent, the state controller, to approve a claim and issue a warrant in favor of John L. McNab, Esq., with whom petitioner has entered into a contract for professional legal services. The controller has refused to draw a warrant ‘ ‘ for the reason that there is no authority in the law for the State Compensation Insurance Fund to employ an attorney upon the contract”.

So far as pertinent here, the petition alleges: The facts pertaining to the constitutional and statutory…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hornblower v. DudenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Lassen County v. ShinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Merriam v. BarnumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Knight v. City of EurekaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Rafael v. BoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Professional Engineers in California Government v. KemptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Konno v. County of Hawai'iHawaii Supreme Court · 1997
  3. City of San Antonio v. WallaceTexas Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Evans v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Professional Engineers v. Department of TransportationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997

51 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