Misch v. Mayhew
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Harvey (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)
- People v. Superior Court (Finch) (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)
- McCulloch v. Bianchini (Nev. 1930)
- Empire Mill Co. v. District Court of the Eighth Judicial District (Idaho 1915)
- Reclamation District No. 765 v. McPhee (Cal. Ct. App. 1910)
- Petition of Los Angeles Trust Co. (Cal. 1910)
- In re L.A. Tr. Co. (Cal. 1910)
- Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham (Cal. 1907)
- Hannah v. Green (Cal. 1904)
- Bellmer v. Blessington (Cal. 1902)
- Dingley v. McDonald (Cal. 1899)
- In re Difference & Controversy between E. M. Derby & Co. & City of Modesto (Cal. 1894)
- Bates v. Howard (Cal. 1894)
- Foreman v. Boyle (Cal. 1891)
- Ducheneau v. Hiram House (Utah 1886)
- Stinson v. Sweeney (Nev. 1883)
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
The judgment of the court below is erroneous. The language of section 1116 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes the time when the list of alleged illegal voters shall be served, is equivalent to a requirement that the opposite party shall have three days’ notice of the illegal votes which the party serving the list expects to prove at the trial. The case is, therefore, covered by section 12 of the same code, and a list served on the seventh of December could properly be relied upon and proven at the trial on the tenth of December.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded, and the County Court is directed to retry the issues made by the statement of the contestant and the answer of defendant thereto.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.