From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodman v. Dominguez

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Apr 19, 1932
122 Cal.App. 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Opinion

Docket No. 8373.

April 19, 1932.

PROCEEDING in Mandamus to compel City Clerk of Los Angeles to omit from recall ballot name of person to be recalled. Writ denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Arthur Brigham Rose and Joseph L. Fainer for Petitioner.

Erwin P. Werner, City Attorney, and Frederick von Schrader, Assistant City Attorney, for Respondent.

Joseph Scott, H.L. Carnahan, E.J. Fleming, George B. Bush, Walter Casey and R.D. Knickerbocker, Amici Curiae, for Respondent.


[1] This case involves the identical questions raised and passed upon in Rutledge v. Dominguez, City Clerk, etc., (Civil No. 8375), ante, p. 680 [ 10 P.2d 1027], and for the reasons stated in the opinion rendered this day therein, the order has been made denying the peremptory writ of mandate with the reservation that this opinion would be later filed.

Works, P.J., and Craig, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Goodman v. Dominguez

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Apr 19, 1932
122 Cal.App. 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Case details for

Goodman v. Dominguez

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS GOODMAN, Petitioner, v. ROBERT DOMINGUEZ, City Clerk, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Apr 19, 1932

Citations

122 Cal.App. 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
10 P.2d 1030