Mitchell v. Warren
| Decision Date | 16 January 1950 |
| Citation | 213 P.2d 413,95 Cal.App.2d 594 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. WARREN, Governor. Civ. 4037. |
Harold A. Parichan, Fresno, for petitioner.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, Leonard M. Friedman, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
Petitioner, Oral L. Mitchell, as a taxpayers and legally qualified voter of the 35th assembly district, instituted this proceeding to compel the Honorable Earl Warren, as Governor of the State of California, to call an election in that district for the purpose of electing a successor to the late Samuel L. Heisinger. Heisinger was duly elected assemblyman of the 35th district in 1948, and died on September 21, 1949, during his term of office. This office has been vacant ever since said date and no election has been called by the Governor to fill said vacancy.
It is alleged in the verified petition and amended verified petition, that it was mandatory, under Article IV, sec. 12, and Art. 1, sec. 22 of the Constitution, and Sec. 1773 of the Government Code, for the Governor to 'at once' issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy. In return to the order to show cause, the attorney general alleges that under the law stated the time of the issuance of a writ of election to fill a vacancy in the legislature is discretionary with the Governor, and cites several cases in support thereof, such as Putnam v. Norblad, 134 Or. 433, 293 P. 940; State ex rel. Cromelein v. Boyd, 36 Neb. 181, 54 N.W. 252, 19 L.R.A. 227; and People ex rel. Bacon v. Cullom, 100 Ill. 472.
After hearing on the order to show cause and the factual questions were properly at issue, the petition was submitted for decision. A few hours before the decision was to be filed, the court was notified that the Governor had called the election in that district. It therefore appears that the question raised by the pleadings is now moot.
On motion of petitioner, the proceeding is dismissed. Weiss v. City of Los Angeles, 190 Cal. 576, 213 P. 979; Atkins v. Hughes, 208 Cal. 508, 509, 282 P. 787.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce v. Gregory
...as moot. (Thornton v. Hoge, 84 Cal. 231, 23 P. 1112; Muller v. Municipal Court, 146 Cal.App.2d 231, 303 P.2d 775; Mitchell v. Warren, 95 Cal.App.2d 594, 213 P.2d 413.) The rationale is, 'No purpose would be served in directing the doing of that which had already been done.' (Muller v. Munic......
-
Stinson v. Blodget
...should be granted restraining the sale has become moot. Diederichsen v. Sutch, 47 Cal.App.2d 646, 118 P.2d 863; Mitchell v. Warren, 95 Cal.App.2d 594, 213 P.2d 413. It appears that by reason of the sale of the property by defendants to an innocent third party, some of the other questions pr......