Case Name: GRACE TAKATA, Petitioner, v. RAY L. RILEY, as State Controller, etc., Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1931-10-08
Citations: 214 Cal. 93
Docket Number: S. F. No. 14424
Parties: GRACE TAKATA, Petitioner, v. RAY L. RILEY, as State Controller, etc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 214
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 14424.
In Bank.
October 8, 1931.]
GRACE TAKATA, Petitioner, v. RAY L. RILEY, as State Controller, etc., Respondent.
Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Barry and Broheeh, Phleger & Harrison for Petitioner.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Ralph O. Marrón, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
At the close of oral argument the chief justice announced the decision of the court as follows:
The question involved is not new. We have examined it a great many times. On the authority of Estate of Wellings, 192 Cal. 506, 519 [221 Pac. 628], Heron v. Riley, 209 Cal. 507 [289 Pac. 160], Frank v. Maguire, 201 Cal. 414 [257 Pac. 515], Buelke v. Levenstadt, 190 Cal. 684 [214 Pac. 42], and cases referred to therein, we are of the view that the title of this act is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. The writ will issue.