People Ex Rel. City of Pasadena v. City of Monterey Park
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, John Hunger, City Attorney of Pasadena, William Hazlett, City Attorney of South Pasadena, Alfred Barsto.w, City Attorney of Alhambra, and Rohe & Jeffers for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtConret, P. J.
J.—This is an action in the nature of quo warrmto in which the plaintiffs challenge the right of the defendants to exercise the franchise of a city and its respective offices. The plaintiffs claim that by virtue of certain proceedings begun on the seventeenth day of April, 1916, and completed on the fourteenth day of August, 1916, certain territory was annexed to and became a part of the city of Alhambra. Defendants claim that by proceedings begun on the eighth day of May, 1916, and completed on the twenty-ninth day of May, 1916, the city of Monterey Park became a municipal corporation of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Taylor v. City of Fort WayneIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- People v. Town of OntarioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- People ex rel. Hathorne v. MorrowIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Ind. Dist. of Sheldon v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- People v. City of LemooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. City of North Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- People Ex Rel. Averna v. City of Palm SpringsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- City of Burlingame v. County of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- People Ex Rel. Forde v. Town of Corte MaderaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Johnson v. City of San PabloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.