People v. Sexton
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)
- State Ex Rel. Sands v. District Court (Mont. 1933)
- City of San Diego v. Andrews (Cal. 1924)
- Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F. (Cal. 1904)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is not a case for mandamus. Whether Rundle, Green, and Irvine were entitled to intervene, was a judicial question. The Judge was required to decide it, and he did so. Whether he decided it correctly, is a question which cannot be made in this proceeding. Having allowed the motion to intervene, he could not thereafter enter a judgment for the plaintiff. Instead, therefore, of refusing to act, he has acted, and, having acted judicially, his action cannot be reviewed by mandamus. (Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 34; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 166; People v. Weston, 28 Cal. 639.)
Mandamus denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.