Richardson v. Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Iheeoving a Stbbet in San Eeanoisoo.—The place where work is to be done in improving a street in San Francisco, must be determined by the judgment of the Board of Supervisors in the resolution of intention. The Board cannot leave the selection of the place where work is to be performed between any-two points to the Superintendent of Streets, or any other person.
By the Court: The description of the work to be performed is “constructing sidewalks on Broadway street from the westerly line of Van Ness Avenue to the easterly line of Octavia [70]street, where necessary. ” It is indispensable that the work to be done should be determined by the judgment of the Board, and neither the judgment of the Superintendent nor that of any other person can be substituted. The case, in this respect, is plainly distinguishable from a resolution of intention to order work to be done “except where done.”
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)