From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lauricella v. Stockburger

Supreme Court of California
Dec 13, 1938
12 Cal.2d 792 (Cal. 1938)

Opinion

Docket No. L.A. 16744.

December 13, 1938.

PROCEEDING in Mandamus to compel the State Director of Finance and the Chief of the Division of Lands to issue oil prospecting permits on certain tidelands. Writ denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Daniel M. Hunsaker, Lloyd E. Keiser, John G. Clock, and Clock, McWhinney Clock for Petitioners.

U.S. Webb, Attorney-General and R.S. McLaughlin, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondents.

George W. Trammell, Jr., City Attorney (Long Beach), Harlan V. Boyer, Assistant City Attorney, Henry D. Lawrence and John O. Palstine, Deputies City Attorney, Swaffield Swaffield and Roland G. Swaffield, as Amici Curiae, on Behalf of Respondents.


THE COURT.

A petition for the issuance of a writ of mandate directed to respondents herein to compel the issuance by them of oil prospecting permits on certain lands allegedly situated within the harbor district of the city of Long Beach, was filed by petitioner in this proceeding, in the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One. An alternative writ of mandate was issued therein. Thereafter the respondents filed a demurrer to the petition, and while the cause was pending final determination in that court, the said proceedings were ordered transferred to this court in order that the issues therein raised might be considered with those presented in the case entitled Miller v. Stockburger, L.A. No. 16715 ( ante, p. 440 [ 85 P.2d 132]), pending decision in this court, and assertedly involving the same questions as those presented in the above-entitled proceedings.

[1] Upon consideration of the respective records in these two cases it is apparent that, except for minor factual differences, the issues presented are substantially identical, and the conclusions arrived at in the said case of Miller v. Stockburger, supra, ( ante, p. 440), this day decided, are therefore decisive of the questions presented in the above-entitled case.

It is therefore ordered that the demurrer be sustained, the alternative writ discharged, and a peremptory writ denied.


Summaries of

Lauricella v. Stockburger

Supreme Court of California
Dec 13, 1938
12 Cal.2d 792 (Cal. 1938)
Case details for

Lauricella v. Stockburger

Case Details

Full title:JOHN D. LAURICELLA, Petitioner, v. ARLIN E. STOCKBURGER, as State Director…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 13, 1938

Citations

12 Cal.2d 792 (Cal. 1938)
85 P.2d 135