Sweatt v. Dominguez

California Supreme Court

Sweatt v. Dominguez

15 P.2d 151, 216 Cal. 527, 1932 Cal. LEXIS 604

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1932

DocketDocket No. S.F. 14792.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 P.2d 151 (Sweatt v. Dominguez) 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

Sweatt v. Dominguez, 15 P.2d 151, 216 Cal. 527, 1932 Cal. LEXIS 604 (Cal. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

WASTE, C. J.

Petitioner has filed herein his application for a writ of mandate directed against the respondents city clerk of the city of Los Angeles and registrar of voters of the county of Los Angeles, to compel the respondents to omit from the form of the ballot to be used at a special election to be held in the city of Los Angeles on November 8, 1932, a proposition for the adoption of a proposed amendment to the charter of the city of Los Angeles upon the ground that the date upon which said proposed amendment will be submitted to the electors of said city is the eighth day of November, 1932, and that the said date is less than forty days after the date upon which the advertisement of said proposed amendment was completed in the official paper of said city. (Const., art. XI, sec. 8.)

Upon the authority of Price v. Whitman, 8 Cal. 412, Iron Mountain Co. v. Haight, 39 Cal. 540, Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham, 151 Cal. 234, 237 [90 Pac. 936], and Cosgriff v. Board of Election Commrs., 151 Cal. 407, 409 [91 Pac. 98], the alternative writ is discharged and the petition for a peremptory writ is denied.

Langdon, J., Preston, J., Curtis, J., Shenk, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

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

WASTE, C. J.

Petitioner has filed herein his application for a writ of mandate directed against the respondents city clerk of the city of Los Angeles and registrar of voters of the county of Los Angeles, to compel the respondents to omit from the form of the ballot to be used at a special election to be held in the city of Los Angeles on November 8, 1932, a proposition for the adoption of a proposed amendment to the charter of the city of Los Angeles upon the ground that the date upon which said proposed amendment will be submitted to the electors of said city is the eighth day of November, 1932, and that the said date is less than forty days after the date upon which the advertisement of said proposed amendment was completed in the official paper of said city. (Const., art. XI, sec. 8.)

Upon the authority of Price v. Whitman, 8 Cal. 412, Iron Mountain Co. v. Haight, 39 Cal. 540, Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham, 151 Cal. 234, 237 [90 Pac. 936], and Cosgriff v. Board of Election Commrs., 151 Cal. 407, 409 [91 Pac. 98], the alternative writ is discharged and the petition for a peremptory writ is denied.

Langdon, J., Preston, J., Curtis, J., Shenk, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 P.2d 151, 216 Cal. 527, 1932 Cal. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweatt-v-dominguez-cal-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack