Skip to main content
· 9/3/1889

Gibson v. Board of Supervisors

Citations

  • 80 Cal. 359
  • 22 P. 225
  • 1889 Cal. LEXIS 918

Syllabus

<p>Election Contest—Ballots — Evidence—Power of Court to Order Ballots Produced. —In a contest over the result of an election, the ballots are competent and material evidence of a very high order. The court may order the clerk to produce the ballots in any contest about an election which may be contested in the court, whether such election be for officers or for any other purpose.</p> <p>Id. — Ballots for Bridge Bonds. —Ballots printed for or against the issue of bonds of a county for the construction of bridges need not have the words “Yes” or “No ” printed upon them. It is sufficient if the ballots are printed “Por the issue of bonds,” or “ Against the issue of bonds.”</p> <p>Id.—Contest of Election for County Bonds — Equity Jurisdiction — Constitutional Law__Since section 18, article 11, of the state constitution regulates elections to determine the policy of creating a bonded indebtedness for a county, and no machinery is provided by law for enforcing the provisions of that section, the constitution by necessary implication confers upon the court of chancery jurisdiction to protect and enforce the will of the people by suitable and proper procedure.</p> <p>Id. —Parties — Suit by Tax-fayer. —A tax-payer is a proper party plaintiff in an equity suit, either to restrain any illegal action which would increase the burden of taxation, or to prevent an untrue official declaration of the result of an election on a proposition to issue bonds, and to have the true declaration made, whether the result of the election be for or against the issuance of the bonds.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • observing that age limitation in statute \represents the sort of line-drawing and balancing of rights and interests regularly and properly done by legislatures\
  • observing that age limitation in statute “represents the sort of line-drawing and balancing of rights and interests regularly and properly done by legislatures”
  • affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals on certiorari under the right-for-any-reason doctrine
  • affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals on certiorari under the right-for-any-reason doctrine
  • affirming the Court of Appeals’ judgment on certiorari under the right-for-any-reason doctrine
  • expert testimony that victim having corrected a mistake in earlier statement was good because it indicated the victim’s resistance to suggestibility was not improper opinion that victim had been molested

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McFarland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.