24 Cal.2d 664, 19005, City of Whittier v. Dixon
| Docket Nº | 19005 |
| Citation | 24 Cal.2d 664, 151 P.2d 5 |
| Opinion Judge | [9] Traynor |
| Party Name | City of Whittier v. Dixon |
| Attorney | [7] Henry L. Knoop, City Attorney, O'Melveny & Myers and James L. Beebe for Petitioners. [8] Clyde C. Woodworth for Respondent. |
| Case Date | August 11, 1944 |
| Court | Supreme Court of California |
Page 664
In Bank.
Page 665
COUNSEL
Henry L. Knoop, City Attorney, O'Melveny & Myers and James L. Beebe for Petitioners. Clyde C. Woodworth for Respondent
OPINION
[151 P.2d 6] TRAYNOR, J.
By this proceeding in mandamus petitioners seek to compel respondent city clerk to countersign a warrant for the payment of the costs of publication of an ordinance of intention, in a proceeding for the formation of Vehicle Parking District No. 1 of the City of Whittier, under the Vehicle Parking District Act of 1943. (Stats. 1943, ch. 971, p. 2859; Deering's Gen. Laws, 1943, Act 5131.3.) Respondent has refused to countersign the warrant contending
Page 666
that the statute pursuant to which the publication was made, is invalid. The regularity of the proceedings is admitted. It is established that mandamus will lie to compel the performance of a ministerial duty such as the signing of a bond or warrant or the issuance of a warrant. (Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt, 214 Cal. 308, 316 ; Mercury Herald Co. v. Moore, 22 Cal.2d 269 [147 A.L.R. 1111].) The only issue in this case, therefore, is the validity of the Vehicle Parking District Act of 1943.
Respondent contends that the title of the act does not meet the requirements of section 24 of article IV of the California Constitution, on the ground that the provisions of the act relating to reassessments, the acquisition of property for opening, widening, straightening, or extending of streets or alleys necessary or convenient for ingress to or egress from any parking place, and the improvement of such streets and alleys, are not within the title of the act. The title of the act reads as follows: "An act to provide for the formation of districts within municipalities for the acquisition, construction, maintenance and operation of parking places, garages and other improvements for the parking of motor vehicles; the levy and collection of assessments upon property in said districts; the issuance, sale and payment of bonds secured by such assessments; the collection of rentals, fees, and charges for the use of such parking places, garages or other [151 P.2d 7] improvements; the administration thereof; the levy of taxes; and the powers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
152 Cal.App.2d 496, 16961, Church Divinity Sch. v. County of Alameda
...and significance of adequate parking facilities has been recognized in this State in other respects. (City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664 [153 A.L.R. 956]; City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 ; Alexander v. Mitchell, 119 Cal.App.2d 816 .) The only California case r......
-
34 Cal.2d 595, 18028, City of Grass Valley v. Walkinshaw
...is against the public interest and should not be entertained by this court. (See my dissenting opinions in City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664 [153 A.L.R. 956], and cases cited.) Notes: [1] Such provisions are as follows: "Sec. 2. The City shall have power: ... "(i) To levy a......
-
__ Cal.App.2d __, Civ. 16105, City & County of San Francisco v. Ross
...California cases generally discussing the problem see Alexander v. Mitchell, 119 Cal.App.2d 816, 260 P.2d 261; City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664, 151 P.2d 5, 153 A.L.R. 956. Respondent does not challenge this premise. The second premise, that the City possesses the power to lease its......
-
520 P.2d 120 (Colo. 1974), 26063, City of Englewood v. Weist
...property to be assessed will receive a special benefit over and above that received by the general public. (City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664, 667, 151 P.2d 5; Irish v. Hahn, 208 Cal. 339, 344, 281 P. 385; Federal Construction Co. v. Ensign, 59 Cal.App. 200, 209--210, 210 P. 536.) Of......
-
152 Cal.App.2d 496, 16961, Church Divinity Sch. v. County of Alameda
...and significance of adequate parking facilities has been recognized in this State in other respects. (City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664 [153 A.L.R. 956]; City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 ; Alexander v. Mitchell, 119 Cal.App.2d 816 .) The only California case r......
-
34 Cal.2d 595, 18028, City of Grass Valley v. Walkinshaw
...is against the public interest and should not be entertained by this court. (See my dissenting opinions in City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664 [153 A.L.R. 956], and cases cited.) Notes: [1] Such provisions are as follows: "Sec. 2. The City shall have power: ... "(i) To levy a......
-
__ Cal.App.2d __, Civ. 16105, City & County of San Francisco v. Ross
...California cases generally discussing the problem see Alexander v. Mitchell, 119 Cal.App.2d 816, 260 P.2d 261; City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664, 151 P.2d 5, 153 A.L.R. 956. Respondent does not challenge this premise. The second premise, that the City possesses the power to lease its......
-
520 P.2d 120 (Colo. 1974), 26063, City of Englewood v. Weist
...property to be assessed will receive a special benefit over and above that received by the general public. (City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664, 667, 151 P.2d 5; Irish v. Hahn, 208 Cal. 339, 344, 281 P. 385; Federal Construction Co. v. Ensign, 59 Cal.App. 200, 209--210, 210 P. 536.) Of......