Legal Opinion
People v. Biscailuz
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 19, 1950No. Civ. 16989PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.
The State of California, as successor to the California Employment Stabilization Commission, instituted this proceeding* in mandamus to compel the sheriff of the County of Los Angeles to pay over to it the sum of $275.84 which was in his possession pursuant to levy of an attachment upon the bank account of Joe C. Hidalgo, issued in Los Angeles Municipal Court action (No. 835383) entitled Max Speilberg v. Joe G. Hidalgo. The petition alleged that subsequent to January 1, 1947, Joe C. Hidalgo was “an employer” within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act; he was delinquent in payments…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- United States v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Marshall v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Beaston v. Farmers' Bank of Del.Supreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Finn v. MeighanSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States F. & G. Co. v. BramwellOregon Supreme Court · 1923
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Durkin v. DurkinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Stark v. ShawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- People Ex Rel. Franchise Tax Board v. Credit Managers Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- People v. WarfelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- People v. BiscailuzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.