Wheeler v. Herbert
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Hannah & Miller, and Charles G. Lamberson, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The legislature, by the act of March 14, 1907, (Stats. 1907, p. 260,) provided that upon the happening of a certain contingency specified in the act the boundary line between the county of Fresno and the county of Kings should be changed. It was declared that thereupon the line of the fourth standard parallel south, as fixed by the United States survey, should be the line between the two counties, and that the territory lying south of that line, and formerly included in Fresno County, should thereupon and thereafter be attached to and be a part of Kings County. The event upon the happening of…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Livermore v. WaiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Deyoe v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- People ex rel. Blanding v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Ex Parte GerinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Wildlife Alive v. ChickeringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Legislature v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Los Angeles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Rossi v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.