City of San Bernardino v. Horton

173 Cal. 396
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 21, 1916
DocketL. A. No. 4937
StatusPublished

This text of 173 Cal. 396 (City of San Bernardino v. Horton) 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
City of San Bernardino v. Horton, 173 Cal. 396 (Cal. 1916).

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of mandate.

The sole question presented is whether a municipality, the city of San Bernardino in this instance, is a “district” within the meaning of that word as used in that part of subdivision f of section 14 of article XIII of the constitution reading as follows: “The legislature shall provide for reimbursement from the general funds of any county to districts therein where loss is occasioned in such districts by the withdrawal from local taxation of property taxed for state purposes only,” and in section 32 of an act of the legislature to carry into effect the provisions of section 14 of article XIII of the constitution, approved April 1, 1911 (Stats. 1911, pp. 530, 556).

The court is unanimously of the view that it is not a district within the meaning of the word as used in these provisions.

The application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Rehearing denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 Cal. 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-san-bernardino-v-horton-cal-1916.