Sindelar

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Sindelar

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 3d 910·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1649·94 Cal. Rptr. 431
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 14, 1971Civ. 29157California3,067 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rattigan, J.

This is an original petition for writ of mandate, filed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District, a public agency (hereinafter the “district”), to compel respondent Nathan J. Sindelar, its treasurer, to execute certain bonds in connection with their issuance and sale by the district as authorized by its board of directors. We have concluded that the district has properly invoked the original jurisdiction of this court, that respondent’s contention that the bonds are unauthorized is without merit, and that a peremptory writ of mandate should issue as prayed.

The board of directors, ordering issuance and sale of the bonds by resolution adopted in 1970, purported to act pursuant to authorization voted by the district’s electors in 1958. As the essential question is whether the 1958 authorization reaches the current bond issue despite the lapse of time, and events before and since the 1958 bond election, we set forth pertinent historical details as follows:

Bechtel Corporation, an independent consulting firm engaged by the district for the purpose, reviewed the proposal and submitted a report, in December 1957, entitled “Engineering-Economic Feasibility Review Of Proposed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.