City of Los Angeles v. Lelande
City of Los Angeles v. Harry J. Lelande, City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court (author)
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
The petition is denied.
The application is within the precedent established by City ofLos Angeles v. Hance, 137 Cal. 490, [70 P. 475], but the court is of the opinion that this decision should not be followed. The city clerk is a purely ministerial officer, whose duty it is to sign any and every ordinance which has been duly passed, regardless of any views which he may entertain as to its legality or illegality. Mandate directed against the clerk for his refusal to sign an ordinance could properly go no further than to order him to perform his plain duty, and any discussion touching the legality or illegality, constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the ordinance in question would be the merest obiter, binding upon no one, and not determinative of any rights.
Cites, in this corpus
- City of Los Angeles v. Hance S.F. No. 3325. · 1902-10-16
Cited by
- Golden Gate Bridge & Highway District v. Felt Docket No. S.F. 14392. · 1931-11-25
- County of Orange v. Backs Docket No. 5305. · 1926-05-03
- Thoits v. Byxbee Civ. No. 1961. · 1917-07-02
- Marin Municipal Water District v. Dolge S. F. No. 7732. In Bank. · 1916-06-08