Jewell v. McKinley

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,028Published

Before: Department

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court declined to rule on the merits of the case prior to trial and affirmed the lower court's order based on the authority of Parrott v. Floyd.

Issues

Whether the court should determine the validity of the ordinance prior to trial.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To determine the questions argued in the briefs of counsel, would be to determine the cause on the merits in advance, of the trial. This, as the case is presented, we think we ought not to do.”

“upon the authority of Parrott v. Floyd, 54 Cal. 534, affirm the order.”

Synopsis

Injunction—Nuisance.

Department No. 1, by the Court: To determine the questions argued in the briefs of counsel, would be to determine the cause on the merits in advance, of the trial. This, as the case is presented, we think we ought not to do. We therefore express no opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the ordinance under which the defendants seek to justify their obstruction of the street in question, but upon the authority of Parrott v. Floyd, 54 Cal. 534, affirm the order.

Order 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)

Related research