Bd. of Educ. of S.F. v. Hyatt
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. William G. Burke, City Attorney, and A. S. Newburgh, Assistant City Attorney, for Petitioner.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
Upon an application to this court by the board of education of the city and county of San Francisco for a writ of mandate to compel the state superintendent of public instruction to include the Humboldt evening high school in said city and county among the schools participating in the apportionment of the state high school fund, an alternative writ issued. The respondent appeared and, after filing a demurrer and an answer, entered into a stipulation with the petitioner, agreeing upon the essential facts.
By section 1 of the act entitled “An Act creating a fund for the benefit and support of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Nevada School District v. ShoecraftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by11 opinions
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. SecaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Watkinson v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist.California Supreme Court · 1916
- People Ex Rel. Williamson v. RinnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Wood v. County of CalaverasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.