Sacramento County v. Hastings
| Decision Date | 19 April 1955 |
| Citation | 132 Cal.App.2d 419,282 P.2d 100 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. James H. HASTINGS, as Auditor of the County of Sacramento, State of California, and Ray G. Houston, as Treasurer of the County of Sacramento, State of California, Respondents. Civ. 8830. |
J. Francis O'Shea, Dist. Atty. John B. Heinrich, Supervising Deputy Dist. Atty., Hugh A. Evans, Deputy Dist. Atty., Sacramento, for petitioner.
Robert W. Cole, Public Defender & Floyd Gibbert, Asst. Public Defender, Sacramento, for respondent.
The county of Sacramento, by and through its County Executive, has filed in this court a petition for writ of mandate to compel respondent County Auditor to issue and pay a number of warrants for certain employees of the County Engineer's office. It is alleged that said employees were required to and did perform certain standby and extra work to meet any and all emergencies that might arise in an unforeseen manner, and which would be emergencies within and affecting any one of the sewer, water, and/or storm drain districts in the county of Sacramento; that said services were performed under and authorized by Ordinance No. 482 of the county of Sacramento; and the petition alleges further that respondent County Auditor has refused to issue said warrants. The petition alleges as the reason for filing the petition in this court that the public interest requires a speedy determination of the matter.
Respondent County Auditor has filed an opposition to said petition in which he contends that the petition should have been filed in the Superior Court, and further that the claims are illegal because said Ordinance No. 482 authorizing them is contrary to the provisions of the charter of the county of Sacramento.
The rules with reference to original proceedings in reviewing courts require: '(1) If the petition might lawfully have been made to a lower court in the first instance, it shall set forth the circumstances which, in the opinion of the petitioner, render it proper that the writ should issue originally from the reviewing court.' It was never intended that such applications should be filed in an appellate court unless there was some good reason why it should not be filed in the superior court, and we are unable to find in the instant proceeding any such emergency as would justify this court in exercising its original jurisdiction. There is no good reason why...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, Afl-Cio v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
...such a petition in the first instance under article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution.7 (See County of Sacramento v. Hastings (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 419, 420-421 .) II. A Decision to Lay Off Firefighters Is Not Subject to Collective Bargaining. We proceed to determine whether any......
-
Independent Energy Producers v. McPherson
...to decline to consider a writ petition when the petitioner has not sought relief in the superior court. (County of Sacramento v. Hastings (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 419, 420, 282 P.2d 100.) The reasons for this rule are obvious. The orderly processes of justice favor initiating proceedings in th......
-
Marriage of Skelley, In re
...35 Cal.2d 363, 370, 217 P.2d 951; People v. Superior Court (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 510, 511, 295 P.2d 464; County of Sacramento v. Hastings (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 419, 420, 282 P.2d 100.) We find no circumstance here warranting detour from the avenue of direct Holding that an order denying pet......
-
Los Angeles County v. Nesvig
...could as well have been instituted in the superior court. As set forth by Mr. Justice Schottky in County of Sacramento v. Hastings, 132 Cal.App.2d 419, 420-421, 282 P.2d 100, 101: 'It was never intended that such applications should be filed in an appellate court unless there was some good ......