Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shealor v. City of Lodi

California Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1944No. Sac. 5630Published

1DissentCurtis, J.

I dissent. The most common rule of statutory interpretation is the rule that a statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not and cannot be interpreted by a court, and only those statutes which are ambiguous and of doubtful meaning are subject to the process of statutory interpretation. (Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., vol. 2, see. 4502, p. 316; 23 Cal.Jur., sec. 109, p. 730.) The act here in question is plainly mandatory in form. As appears from its pertinent sections as quoted in the main opinion, the board of trustees of the pension fund was thereby “created,” its powers…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Klench v. Board of Pension Fund CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  2. County of Los Angeles v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Hodge v. McCallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. City & County of San Francisco v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. City of Los Angeles v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API