County of San Luis Obispo v. Graves
Citations
- 84 Cal. 71
- 23 P. 1032
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 761
Syllabus
<p>County Ordinance — Conflict with General Law. — A county ordinance in conflict with a valid general law is void; but the ordinance must prevail, notwithstanding conflict with a general statute, if such statute is unconstitutional, and the ordinance harmonizes with the constitution and with other general laws.</p> <p>Id. — Constitutional Law — County License Tax—Payment into City Treasury —Special and Local Legislation — County Government Act. — Subdivision 15 of the county government act as amended in 1889, which provides that money collected by the county license-tax collector in counties of the twenty-seventh class, for licenses within the limits of any incorporated city or town, shall be paid into its treasury for street improvements, is void, as being special and local legislation, not germane to the section of the general law to which it is attached, and in conflict with the general laws upon that subject, and in conflict with sections 4, 5, and 16 of article 11, section 11, of article I, and sections 25 (subdivision 9) and 33 of article 4, of the constitution. License taxes collected under the provisions of the code, or of an ordinance of a board of supervisors, are collected for the use of the county, and it is the duty of the collector to deposit them in the county treasury. It is only municipal license taxes imposed and collected for municipal purposes which can be paid into the city treasury.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that testimony by a GBI agent that he thought a key State’s witness had been truthful during the investigation was subject to an improper bolstering objection
- explaining that “hindsight has no place in an assessment of the performance of trial counsel” when rejecting trial counsel’s subjective belief whether testimony was improper bolstering
- discussing several reasons why a reasonable lawyer might not object to bolstering testimony
- even where trial counsel admitted that some of the testimony was probably objectionable, finding no deficient performance because there were several reasons why a reasonable lawyer might not have objected
- “[R]easonable lawyer might have concluded that objecting to [the statements] could signal to the jury that the defense was worried about such testimony, thereby emphasizing the testimony and magnifying any harmful implications of it.”
- “[A] reasonable lawyer might have concluded that objecting to [bolstering] testimony could signal to the jury that the defense was worried about such testimony, thereby emphasizing the testimony and magnifying the harmful implications of it.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fox
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.