Adams v. Kerr

California Supreme Court

Adams v. Kerr

215 Cal. 773

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 1932

DocketL. A. No. 13746

StatusPublished

This text of 215 Cal. 773 (Adams v. Kerr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Kerr, 215 Cal. 773 (Cal. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandate directed to the respondent as Registrar of Voters of the County of Los Angeles, compelling him to accept and file petitioner’s declaration of candidacy and other documents relating thereto, as required by the election laws. Respondent, in his answer to the petition for the writ, alleges that petitioner has failed to specify the number-designated office for which he seeks to become a candidate. Respondent therefore asserts that he is not required nor authorized to accept and file petitioner’s declaration of candidacy.

The contentions advanced by petitioner are substantially the same as those advanced in the case of Steiger v. [774]*774Collins, (S. F. No. 14684) ante, p. 634 [12 Pac. (2d) 426], opinion in which case has this day been handed down. On the authority of that decision, the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandate directed to the respondent as Registrar of Voters of the County of Los Angeles, compelling him to accept and file petitioner’s declaration of candidacy and other documents relating thereto, as required by the election laws. Respondent, in his answer to the petition for the writ, alleges that petitioner has failed to specify the number-designated office for which he seeks to become a candidate. Respondent therefore asserts that he is not required nor authorized to accept and file petitioner’s declaration of candidacy.

The contentions advanced by petitioner are substantially the same as those advanced in the case of Steiger v. [774]*774Collins, (S. F. No. 14684) ante, p. 634 [12 Pac. (2d) 426], opinion in which case has this day been handed down. On the authority of that decision, the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 Cal. 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-kerr-cal-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack