Takata v. Riley

California Supreme Court

Takata v. Riley

214 Cal. 93

California Supreme Court·Decided October 8, 1931·No. S. F. No. 14424·Published

Opinion

THE COURT.

At the close of oral argument the chief justice announced the decision of the court as follows:

The question involved is not new. We have examined it a great many times. On the authority of Estate of Wellings, 192 Cal. 506, 519 [221 Pac. 628], Heron v. Riley, 209 Cal. 507 [289 Pac. 160], Frank v. Maguire, 201 Cal. 414 [257 Pac. 515], Buelke v. Levenstadt, 190 Cal. 684 [214 Pac. 42], and cases referred to therein, we are of the view that the title of this act is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. The writ will issue.

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

THE COURT.

At the close of oral argument the chief justice announced the decision of the court as follows:

The question involved is not new. We have examined it a great many times. On the authority of Estate of Wellings, 192 Cal. 506, 519 [221 Pac. 628], Heron v. Riley, 209 Cal. 507 [289 Pac. 160], Frank v. Maguire, 201 Cal. 414 [257 Pac. 515], Buelke v. Levenstadt, 190 Cal. 684 [214 Pac. 42], and cases referred to therein, we are of the view that the title of this act is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. The writ will issue.

Takata v. Riley, 214 Cal. 93 (Cal. 1931).

Pincite

214 Cal. 93 (Takata v. Riley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related