City of Los Angeles v. Lelande

106 P. 218, 157 Cal. 30, 1909 Cal. LEXIS 256
California Supreme Court·Decided December 22, 1909·No. S.F. No. 5430.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The petition is denied.

The application is within the precedent established by City ofLos Angeles v. Hance, 137 Cal. 490, [70 P. 475], but the court is of the opinion that this decision should not be followed. The city clerk is a purely ministerial officer, whose duty it is to sign any and every ordinance which has been duly passed, regardless of any views which he may entertain as to its legality or illegality. Mandate directed against the clerk for his refusal to sign an ordinance could properly go no further than to order him to perform his plain duty, and any discussion touching the legality or illegality, constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the ordinance in question would be the merest obiter, binding upon no one, and not determinative of any rights.

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

City of Los Angeles v. Lelande, 106 P. 218, 157 Cal. 30, 1909 Cal. LEXIS 256 (Cal. 1909).

106 P. 218 (City of Los Angeles v. Lelande) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Golden Gate Bridge & Highway District v. Felt
5 P.2d 585 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
County of Orange v. Backs
247 P. 519 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Thoits v. Byxbee
167 P. 166 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Marin Municipal Water District v. Dolge
158 P. 187 (California Supreme Court, 1916)