Walsh v. Railroad Commission

California Supreme Court Dec 4, 1940 No. L. A. 17569Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition and other relief because it lacked jurisdiction over requests for declaratory or injunctive relief, failed to provide notice to most respondents, and because the city attorney, as a prosecutor, does not exercise the judicial functions necessary to be subject to a writ of prohibition.

Issues

Does the court have jurisdiction to grant original applications for declaratory or injunctive relief?
Can a writ of prohibition issue against a city attorney prosecuting alleged statutory violations?
May a peremptory writ of prohibition issue against respondents who have not been served with notice or appeared in the proceeding?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This court has no jurisdiction over original applications for declaratory relief or for injunctive relief”

“the writ of prohibition may not issue except for the purpose of arresting the proceedings of those “exercising judicial functions”.”

“the demurrer to the present petition must be sustained and, the petition must be denied.”

SPENCE, J.,

pro

tem.

Petitioners filed herein a petition entitled “Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Writ of Injunction and for Temporary Restraining Order.” The prayer of said petition asks “(1) For a declaration of their rights, duties and obligations with respect to the respondents herein, in relation to the provisions of said Motor Carrier Transportation Agent Act and said Act; and (2) For a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondents, excepting the Railroad Commission of the State of California, from enforcing or attempting to enforce the said Act, or any of its terms or provisions, against the petitioners; and/or (3) For a writ of injunction restraining and enjoining said respondents, excepting the Railroad Commission of the State of California, from enforcing or attempting to enforce the said Act, or any of its terms or provisions, against the petitioners; and (4) For a temporary restraining order, or an alternative writ of prohibition or injunction against the respondents, excepting the Railroad Commission of the State of California, from enforcing or attempting to enforce the said act, or any of its terms or provisions, against the petitioners ... ”.

On June 14, 1940, this court ordered that an alternative writ of prohibition issue returnable on September 24, 1940. Petitioners failed however to cause the issuance or service of any alternative writ and the only respondent who has ap

[693]

peared herein is “Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles”, who appeared as a named respondent and not on behalf of the respondent City of Los Angeles or any other respondent. There is nothing in the record to show that the remaining respondents, or any of them, have ever been served with or have ever had any notice of the hearing or any notice of the pendency of this proceeding.

On the return day, appearances were made only on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of said respondent Ray L. Chesebro. Said respondent had filed a demurrer to the petition and said demurrer was argued and ordered submitted. There was also an application for leave to intervene made by Passenger Carriers, Incorporated. Said application was likewise submitted.

Walsh v. Railroad Commission

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.,

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief