TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Strother

THE PEOPLE v. FLEET F. STROTHER

People v. Strother, 8 P. 383 (Cal. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 30, 1885
Docket
No. 11284
Judges
Myrick
Citations
8 P. 38367 Cal. 6241885 Cal. LEXIS 710
Syllabus
Constitution—Amendment—Boabd of Equalization.—The amendment of 1884 to section 9, article xiii., of the Constitution, was properly adopted.
Summary
Application for a writ of mandate. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Myrick

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Myrick, J.

Application for mandamus to compel the auditor of the city and county of San Francisco to enter in his books an increase of the assessments by adding a percentage in accordance with the direction of the State board of equalization.

The reasons presented on behalf of the auditor why the writ should not issue.have been considered by us. For lack of time we cannot enter into a full discussion in this judgment of those reasons. As the time for performing the duty is rapidly passing, it is of more immediate importance to know the duty than its reasons. Other cases are before us involving some of the questions here concerned; and in those cases we shall give our views more at length. ' •

The substantial question involved is whether the amendment of section 9, article xiii., of the Constitution was properly adopted. Independent of that question there is but little in the objections urged on behalf of respondent; no matter appears to us which renders it impossible for him to comply with the order.

We are of opinion that the amendment referred to_was constitutionally adopted.

Let the writ issue as prayed for,, forthwith.

Morrison, C. J., Ross, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1886–1887: 21896–1897: 11900–1901: 11904–1905: 11918–1919: 11940–1941: 118862026peak 1886 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Graham v. Jones3 So. 2d 761 (La. 1941) · Dissent
  2. State ex rel. Adams v. Herried72 N.W. 93 (S.D. 1897)
  3. Oakland Paving Co. v. Tompkins12 P. 801 (Cal. 1887)
  4. People ex rel. Board of Supervisors v. Loomis98 N.W. 262 (Mich. 1904)
  5. Lee v. Price181 P. 948 (Utah 1919)
  6. People ex rel. Attorney General v. Curry62 P. 516 (Cal. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Graham v. Jones3 So. 2d 761 (La. 1941) · Dissent
  2. Lee v. Price181 P. 948 (Utah 1919)
  3. People ex rel. Board of Supervisors v. Loomis98 N.W. 262 (Mich. 1904)
  4. People ex rel. Attorney General v. Curry62 P. 516 (Cal. 1900)
  5. State ex rel. Adams v. Herried72 N.W. 93 (S.D. 1897)
  6. Oakland Paving Co. v. Tompkins12 P. 801 (Cal. 1887)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list