Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 Cal. 128

Walser v. Austin

California Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 1894

California Supreme Court · decided 1894-09-17

On the third day of January, 1893, Firman Church, the district attorney of Fresno county, elected at the general election in 1892, appointed the plaintiff the assistant district attorney, at a salary of two thousand four hundred dollars a year. The plaintiff immediately qualified and entered upon the duties of his office.

Relies on Doughterty v. Austin · Welsh v. Bramlet

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-09-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1923

3 state decisions

101894190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

De Haven, J.

¶1It was held in the case of Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, that subdivision 21 of section 170 *130of the- County Government' Act, approved March 31, 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 295), contains local and special legislation, and is in conflict with section 5 of article XI of the constitution of the state, which directs that the legislature by general and uniform laws shall provide for the election or appointment in the several counties of such county, township, and municipal officers “as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their terms of office.” We can add nothing to the reasoning by which that conclusion was reached, and upon the authority of that case the judgment and order herein must be affirmed.

¶2Judgment and order affirmed.

Fitzgeuald, J., concurred.
McFarland, J.

¶3I concur in the judgment solely upon the authority of Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, and Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601, in which cases I could not concur.

/104/cal/128 · .json · Public domain