Court Opinion

ID: 9538737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:40:56.61265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:07.736287
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.
That mandate lies solely to compel the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law is well established. (Spaulding v. Desmond, 188 Cal. 783, 789 [207 P. 896], and cases cited therein.) I dissented in Hollman v. Warren, 32 Cal.2d 351 [196 P.2d 562], on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal duty upon the governor to consider her application. In the present case, the petitioners have even less basis for the position that the elected members of the committee have a duty to revoke the appointments made by them pursuant to the challenged code section. The only purpose of this proceeding is to compel them to do so. Even if it be conceded that the statute is unconstitutional, no showing is made that the committee has a clear legal duty to revoke the appointments.
I would, therefore, deny the peremptory writ.