People v. Sexton
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WARREN T. SEXTON
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Silas S. Sanderson (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 — Sanderson
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
This is not a case for mandamus. Whether Rundle, Green, and Irvine were entitled to intervene, was a judicial question. The Judge was required to decide it, and he did so. Whether he decided it correctly, is a question which cannot be made in this proceeding. Having allowed the motion to intervene, he could not thereafter enter a judgment for the plaintiff. Instead, therefore, of refusing to act, he has acted, and, having acted judicially, his action cannot be reviewed by mandamus. (Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 34; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 166; People v. Weston, 28 Cal. 639.)
Mandamus denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- People ex rel. Wheaton v. Weston · 1865-10-15
- People ex rel. Polhemus v. Pratt · 1865-04-15
- People ex rel. Flagley v. Hubbard · 1863-07-01
Cited by
- State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court Civ. 9788 · 1935-03-20
- City of San Diego v. Andrews Docket No. S.F. 11219. · 1924-12-17
- Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F. S.F. No. 3937. · 1904-09-30