Takata v. Riley
GRACE TAKATA v. RAY L. RILEY, as State Controller, etc.
- 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
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.
Cites, in this corpus
- Heron v. Riley Docket No. S.F. 13658. · 1930-05-31
- Frank v. Maguire Docket No. S.F. 12384. · 1927-06-20
- Michigan Trust Co. v. Bronson L. A. No. 7351. · 1923-12-11
- Buelke v. Levenstadt L. A. No. 7309. · 1923-03-23