California Supreme Court, 1886

Temple v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Decided July 26, 1886 · Thornton

70 Cal. 211; 11 P. 699; 1886 Cal. LEXIS 766

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision.

Sampsell v. Superior Court (Cal. 1948)
Robinson v. Superior Court (Cal. 1950)
Hennessy v. Superior Court (Cal. 1924)
Griffin v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)
Elliott v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)
Bender v. Bender (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
Branker v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)
Cook v. Winklepleck (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
Balconades Ballroom, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
Moch v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
State ex rel. Braatelien v. Drakeley (N.D. 1913)
Hill v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
California Pine Box & Lumber Co. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1910)
Scott v. Shields (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
State ex rel. McGovern v. Williams (Wis. 1908)
State ex rel. Smith v. McClinton (Wash. 1897)
State ex rel. Colcord v. Young (Fla. 1893)
Borges Massas v. Janer Landrón (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1942)
Borges Massas v. Janer Landrón (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1942)
Inglin v. Hoppin (Cal. 1909)
Gilbert v. Shaver (Ark. 1909)
Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F. (Cal. 1904)
Crocker v. Conrey (Cal. 1903)

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

Thornton, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court of Los Angelés County, Judge W. A. Cheney presiding, to hear a charge of contempt of court made against one B. Newman, which that court had refused to hear, and has dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

*212We have examined the record, and are of opinion that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court. The facts stated bring the case clearly within section 1210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under such circumstances the court cannot, by holding without reason that it has no jurisdiction of the proceeding, divest itself of jurisdiction, and evade the duty of hearing and determining it. The prayer of the petition should be granted, and it is so ordered.

McKee, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.