California Supreme Court, 1896

Craig v. Brown

Craig v. Brown
California Supreme Court · Decided October 8, 1896 · Beatty, McFarland
114 Cal. 480; 46 P. 870; 1896 Cal. LEXIS 928

Craig v. Brown

Opinion of the Court

The Court.

We are of opinion that the application for a writ of mandate should be denied, holding that the designation “ National Democratic is not calculated to deceive. Henshaw, J., Van Fleet, J.,

Harrison, J., Temple, J.

Dissenting Opinion

Beatty, C. J., dissenting.

I dissent. I cannot distinguish this case from the Dolan and Ewing cases, in which we held that candidates nominated by petition are not entitled to a party designation which might mislead voters.

Concurring Opinion

McFarland, J., concurring.

I concur in the judgment ; but I also think that the question—under the peculiar form which this petition for a writ takes—was determined by the secretary of state when he accepted and filed the certificate, and that his action cannot be reviewed on this proceeding.

Garoutte, J., dissented.

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