Morton v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 15927 · 1953-08-13 · Published · 119 Cal. App. 2d 665

Area: civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

119 Cal.App.2d 665 (1953) HAMILTON MORTON et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Respondent.

Civ. No. 15927. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. One.

Aug. 13, 1953. Alfred J. Harwood for Petitioners.

Louis B. Dematteis, District Attorney (San Mateo County), and James M. Parmelee, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

[1] The petition for an alternative writ of prohibition is denied because it is our opinion that under section 1094.5 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Superior Court has full power, if the public interest requires, to dissolve, modify or change a stay order once granted as long as the proceeding for mandate is still pending in that court. This conclusion is predicated upon the general intent of the section, and is suggested if not compelled by the language that the court in which the mandamus proceeding is pending has power to stay the operation of the administrative order "provided that no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest."

Cites, in this corpus

Morton v. Superior Court Civ. No. 15927 · 1953-08-13

Cited by

VENICE CANALS RESIDENT HOME OWNERS v. Superior Ct. Docket Nos. 50423, 50479 · 1977-08-12
Venice Canals Resident Home Owners Ass'n v. Superior Court Civ. No. 50423; Civ. No. 50479 · 1977-08-12