Miller v. Board of Supervisors

California Supreme Court

Miller v. Board of Supervisors

413 P.2d 859, 64 Cal. 2d 890, 50 Cal. Rptr. 915, 1966 Cal. LEXIS 327

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1966

DocketS. F. 21635

StatusPublished

This text of 413 P.2d 859 (Miller v. Board of Supervisors) 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

Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 413 P.2d 859, 64 Cal. 2d 890, 50 Cal. Rptr. 915, 1966 Cal. LEXIS 327 (Cal. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

-Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment denying their application to compel the County of Santa Clara to reapportion its supervisorial districts. We ordered reapportionment and retained jurisdiction for further appropriate proceedings should the board of supervisors fail properly to redistrict within a given time. (Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 61 Cal.2d 885 [37 Cal.Rptr. 440, 390 P.2d 208].) Plaintiffs subsequently invoked our continuing jurisdiction and after a hearing we set forth minimum acceptable limits of population distribution and again retained jurisdiction for the purpose of final disposition. (Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 63 Cal.2d 343 [46 Cal.Rptr. 617, 405 P.2d 857].)

The parties have filed a stipulation herein that defendants have since complied with our directions and request approval of the reapportionment and disposition of the matter by final order.

The judgment is therefore reversed. Inasmuch as defendants have complied with our directions for reapportionment, the issuance of a peremptory writ by the trial court is unnecessary.

Plaintiffs to recover their costs on appeal.

Let the remittitur issue forthwith.

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

THE COURT.

-Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment denying their application to compel the County of Santa Clara to reapportion its supervisorial districts. We ordered reapportionment and retained jurisdiction for further appropriate proceedings should the board of supervisors fail properly to redistrict within a given time. (Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 61 Cal.2d 885 [37 Cal.Rptr. 440, 390 P.2d 208].) Plaintiffs subsequently invoked our continuing jurisdiction and after a hearing we set forth minimum acceptable limits of population distribution and again retained jurisdiction for the purpose of final disposition. (Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 63 Cal.2d 343 [46 Cal.Rptr. 617, 405 P.2d 857].)

The parties have filed a stipulation herein that defendants have since complied with our directions and request approval of the reapportionment and disposition of the matter by final order.

The judgment is therefore reversed. Inasmuch as defendants have complied with our directions for reapportionment, the issuance of a peremptory writ by the trial court is unnecessary.

Plaintiffs to recover their costs on appeal.

Let the remittitur issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 P.2d 859, 64 Cal. 2d 890, 50 Cal. Rptr. 915, 1966 Cal. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-board-of-supervisors-cal-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack