Pico v. Williams (1886) · DecisionDepot

Pico v. Williams

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 2, 1886 No. No. 11,680Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition because the governor's request provided sufficient authority for Judge Williams to preside over the superior court in Los Angeles County.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of prohibition based on the facts stated in the petition.

Disposition. Application denied and alternative writ annulled.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition.”

“The request of the governor, as set forth in the petition, was sufficient authority for Judge Williams to hold a superior court in the county of Los Angeles.”

Synopsis

Superior Court—Holding Court in Another County.—The Request of the Governor of the state of California to the judge of the superior court of one county to hold a superior court in another county is sufficient authority to entitle the latter to take jurisdiction of causes brought before him for trial in such county.

By the COURT. We are of opinion that, from the facts stated in the petition, the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition. The request of the governor, as set forth in the petition, was sufficient authority for Judge Williams to hold a superior court in the county of Los Angeles. It is therefore unnecessary to consider any, issue raised by the answer of respondent.

The application for a writ of prohibition is denied, and the alternative writ heretofore issued is annulled.

Pico v. Williams

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief