Legal Opinion
Hartsock v. Merritt
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 23, 1928No. Docket No. 6462PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.
The petitioner moved for a peremptory writ of mandate to require the respondent, the city clerk of the city of Oakland, to certify as sufficient a petition filed with him asking for an election to vote upon the recall of C. C. Young, one of the commissioners of said city, and purporting to have been signed by the required number of qualified voters of said city. The respondent filed a demurrer and answer to the petition. The demurrer was overruled and the legal questions involved in the proceedings were disposed of at that time (Hartsock v. Merritt, 93 Cal. App. 365 [269 Pac. 757]), but the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In Re HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Dufton v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Bleuel v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Hartsock v. MerrittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Bess v. ParkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Palmer v. FoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Peters v. Sacramento City Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Consolidated Printing & Publishing Co. v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.