Dawson v. Superior Court of Cty. of Kings

California Supreme Court

Dawson v. Superior Court of Cty. of Kings

110 P. 479, 158 Cal. 73, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 340

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1910

DocketS.F. No. 5614.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 110 P. 479 (Dawson v. Superior Court of Cty. of Kings) 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

Dawson v. Superior Court of Cty. of Kings, 110 P. 479, 158 Cal. 73, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 340 (Cal. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

It appears in this case that an application for a writ of prohibition against the respondent was made to the district court of appeal of the second district on May 23, 1910; that an alternative writ was issued therein, and that on June 13, 1910, the said district court gave judgment denying the application on its merits. Under the constitution the district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme court in original proceedings of this character. A judgment by that court is therefore an adjudication of the matters set forth in the petition. If this court should entertain a distinct application of the same character the petitioner would be met by an answer alleging the former adjudication in the district court, and that adjudication would be a bar. In such cases if the applicant desires the intervention of this court in the matter, *74 the only effectual-method of obtaining it is by application for a transfer of the case to this court for a reconsideration and decision. If the district court had decided the case without an adjudication upon the merits, perhaps its judgment would not be a bar, but petitioner’s application shows that the adjudication of that court was a decision upon the merits.

For these reasons the application for a writ is denied.

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

THE COURT.

It appears in this case that an application for a writ of prohibition against the respondent was made to the district court of appeal of the second district on May 23, 1910; that an alternative writ was issued therein, and that on June 13, 1910, the said district court gave judgment denying the application on its merits. Under the constitution the district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme court in original proceedings of this character. A judgment by that court is therefore an adjudication of the matters set forth in the petition. If this court should entertain a distinct application of the same character the petitioner would be met by an answer alleging the former adjudication in the district court, and that adjudication would be a bar. In such cases if the applicant desires the intervention of this court in the matter, *74 the only effectual-method of obtaining it is by application for a transfer of the case to this court for a reconsideration and decision. If the district court had decided the case without an adjudication upon the merits, perhaps its judgment would not be a bar, but petitioner’s application shows that the adjudication of that court was a decision upon the merits.

For these reasons the application for a writ is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 P. 479, 158 Cal. 73, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-superior-court-of-cty-of-kings-cal-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack