People v. Russell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County. The action was brought to recover the amount of a license attempted to be established by an ordinance of the board of supervisors of San Luis Obispo County. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton J.
The ordinance in this case was published. without the enacting clause. By ■ section 26 of the act of March 14, 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 399), entitled "An act to establish a uniform system of county and township governments,” it is provided that the enacting clause of all ordinances of the board of supervisors shall be as follows: “The board of supervisors do ordain as follows.” This enacting clause is a part of every ordinance.
The section above referred to also provides: "On the passage of all ordinances, the votes of the several members of the board shall be entered on the minutes,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cline v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- State v. WallerOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Hopper v. Board of County CommissionersNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
- County of Mono v. DepauliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Hopper v. Board of County CommissionersNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973