Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SANDIEGO COUNTY et al., Respondents.

CARTER, J.

In this case petitioner for a writ of mandate is an irrigation district which proceeded under the Irrigation District Law as it existed prior to its amendment in 1947 to include within its boundaries property owned by it. The 1947 amendment and problems similar to those here raised are discussed in County of Mariposa v. Merced Irrigation District, ante, p. 467 [ 196 P.2d 920]. [1] However, in this case the district seeks by mandamus to compel the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County to cancel the assessment of taxes on its property, the board having refused to cancel on the ground that the district could not escape taxation of its property formerly outside of its boundaries by annexing it. It is asserted that mandamus is not available as petitioner has an adequate remedy at law. That contention must be sustained. The unavailability of that remedy is settled ( Sherman v. Quinn, 31 Cal.2d 661 [ 192 P.2d 17]).

The petition for the writ is denied. The alternative writ is discharged.

Gibson, C.J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Petitioner's application for a rehearing was denied September 27, 1948. Traynor, J., voted for a rehearing.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

VISTA IRR. DIST. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
(Aug 30, 1948)