From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

County of Nevada v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Jan 18, 1974
10 Cal.3d 663 (Cal. 1974)

Opinion

Docket No. Sac. 8003.

January 18, 1974.

COUNSEL

Leo J. Todd, County Counsel, and Brian A. Bishop, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Iver E. Skjeie, Assistant Attorney General, Clayton P. Roche, Richard D. Martland and Floyd D. Shimomura, Deputy Attorneys General, Ronald L. MacMillen, District Attorney, and John Darlington, Assistant District Attorney, for Real Parties in Interest.


OPINION

THE COURT.

(1) In this mandate proceeding it appears that respondent Nevada County Superior Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction in the case of County of Nevada et al. v. MacMillen, No. 18893, challenging the validity of the Governmental Conflict of Interest Act (Stats. 1973, ch. 1166; Gov. Code, §§ 3600-3760) on the ground that "at least all nonretired Superior Court Judges are disqualified from hearing or proceeding in this cause." We conclude that such judges are not so disqualified. (See Goodspeed v. Great Western P. Co. (1937) 19 Cal.App.2d 435, 444 [ 65 P.2d 1342]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Courts, § 65, p. 344.) It is therefore ordered that respondent court proceed to hear and determine case No. 18893 pending before it. In all other respects the petition is denied. The petition to intervene and answer is also denied.

This order is final forthwith.


Summaries of

County of Nevada v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Jan 18, 1974
10 Cal.3d 663 (Cal. 1974)
Case details for

County of Nevada v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:COUNTY OF NEVADA et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEVADA…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 18, 1974

Citations

10 Cal.3d 663 (Cal. 1974)
111 Cal. Rptr. 568
517 P.2d 832

Citing Cases

County of Nevada v. MacMillen

On January 18, 1974, this court issued its order stating that superior court judges are not so disqualified…

Central West Basin Water Etc. Dist. v. Wong

The word "interested" has been said to embrace "only an interest that is direct, proximate, substantial, and…