Pacheco v. Beck
California Supreme Court
Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate. The defendant was Secretary of State. The abstract “ a” and the statements “ b ” and “ c,” appended to the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace, were contained in the petition for the writ, and the two latter were inserted as reasons why the Secretary of State had failed to estimate the vote according to the abstract “ a.” The other facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace.
Read the full summary
Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate. The defendant was Secretary of State. The abstract “ a” and the statements “ b ” and “ c,” appended to the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace, were contained in the petition for the writ, and the two latter were inserted as reasons why the Secretary of State had failed to estimate the vote according to the abstract “ a.” The other facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Wallace. The defendant demurred to the petition.
1DissentCbockett, J.
It is conceded on all sides that, under the Political Code, the duty of canvassing the election returns of a county, and declaring the result, is confided exclusively to the Board of Supervisors, and that its action in the premises, when duly entered of record, is absolutely conclusive, except in the case of a contested election. The method of procedure in canvassing the returns and declaring the result is prescribed by the statute, and is not only perfectly simple, but is entirely free from ambiguity. The Board must convene at its usual place of meeting on a specified day, and if all the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ex parte KelloggSupreme Court of Vermont · 1834
- People v. Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1874
- Venable v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836
- Eastman v. HarteauWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Coleman v. McKnightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1835
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.