Keys v. Board of Supervisors

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1871 No. No. 2,890Published

Before: Wallace

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the issuance of a writ of certiorari is a matter of judicial discretion, and that such a writ should generally be barred if not sought within one year, absent extraordinary circumstances, especially where public funds have already been expended.

Issues

Whether District Courts have the authority to issue a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of a Board of Supervisors.
Whether the proceedings of a Board of Supervisors in establishing a public road constitute judicial functions subject to review by certiorari.
Whether the application for a writ of certiorari was barred by the lapse of time and the expenditure of public funds.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the granting or refusal of a writ of certiorari, for the purpose of reviewing such proceedings as those here in question, is to be determined by the exercise of a sound judicial discretion.”

“unless circumstances of an extraordinary character be shown to have intervened, the remedy through a writ of certiorari should be held to be barred by the lapse of a like period of time.”

Synopsis

Authority of District Courts as to Certiorari.—The District Courts and the Judges of those Courts have authority to issue the writ of certiorari. The amendments to the Constitution do not affect the question.

Proceedings of Supervisors subject of Review.—The proceedings of a Board of Supervisors, in laying out a highway, involved the exercise of judicial functions in the sense of rendering such proceedings the subject of review through the instrumentality of a writ of certiorari.

Judicial Discretion as to Certiorari.—The granting or refusal of a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing the action of a Board of Supervisors, is within the sound discretion of the Court, having due regard to public convenience.

Certiorari Barred by the Lapse of a Tear.—Unless circumstances of an extraordinary character be shown to have intervened, the remedy through a writ of certiorari should be held to be barred by the lapse of one year.

Expenditures of Public Money to be Considered.—The Board of Supervisors of Marin County made an order opening a highway, and, under the belief that the proceedings were final, considerable sums of the public moneys were expended in improving the road. Held, that parties injured by the road, who failed to complain for more than a year after the order was made, should be remitted to their ordinary remedies.

By the Court, Wallace, J.: This appeal is taken from the judgment of the District Court of the County of Marin, rendered upon the return to a writ of certiorari, issued by the Judge of that Court upon the petition of Keys, and vacating certain proceedings of the Board, by which it had located and established a public road, commencing near the Town of Tómales. The order of the Board brought under review was entered upon its records on the 5th day of Kovember, 1868, and the application for the writ was made on the 7th day of October, 1870, nearly two years after the entry of the order.

We are of opinion that the District Courts, and the Judges of those Courts, have authority to issue the writ of certiorari (Pr. Act, Sec. 456, and Act of April 20th, 1863, concerning Courts of justice, etc., Sec. 25), and that the late amendments to the Constitution of the State do not affect the question.

We think, too, that the proceedings of the Board, in establishing the road, involved the exercise of judicial functions in the sense of rendering those proceedings the [255]subject of review, through the instrumentality of the writ of certiorari. (Pr. Act, supra.) The objections urged by the appellant in each of these respects must, therefore, be overruled.

But the granting or refusal of a writ of certiorari, for the purpose of reviewing such proceedings as those here in question, is to be determined by the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. Considerations of the public convenience are not to be overlooked in its determination. In The People ex rel. Church v. The Supervisors of Allegany, 15 Wend. 206, the Court said: “ In the exercise of the superintending power of this Court over inferior jurisdictions, the writ of error is a writ of right, and issues on conforming to such regulations as have been prescribed by law. But the writ of certiorari, especially in those cases where it is used for the purpose of reviewing the acts and decisions of the special jurisdictions which are created by statute, and do not proceed according to the course of the common law, such as Boards of Supervisors, Commissioners of Highways, and the like, does not issue ex debito justitice, but only on application to the Court and special cause shown. The reason is, that these bodies exercise powers in which the people at large are concerned, and great public detriment or inconvenience might result from interfering with their proceedings.”

So, too, in The People ex rel. Agnew and others v. The Mayor, etc., of New York, 2 Hill, 12, which was a certiorari to review the proceedings of the corporation of the City of Hew York in constructing a public improvement, Bronson, J., in delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The allowance of the writ rests in the sound discretion of the Court, and it has often been denied where the power to issue it was unquestionable, and where there was apparent error in the proceedings to be reviewed.” In the same case he further observed that it was “ important to notice that the

Keys v. Board of Supervisors

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief