Metropolitan Water District v. Burney

Good Law
1932 Cal. LEXIS 456·215 Cal. 582·11 P.2d 1095
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 2, 1932Docket No. L.A. 13503.California1,469 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Langdon, J.

This is a proceeding to determine the validity of certain bonds authorized to be issued by the Metropolitan Water District, petitioner herein.

Petitioner was regularly organized under the Metropolitan Water District Act (Stats, of 1927, chap. 429, p. 694), and since December 6, 1928, has been operating thereunder. It embraces territory included within the corporate boundaries of the cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Compton, Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Marino, Santa Monica and Torrance, in the county of Los Angeles, and Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana, in the county of Orange. On September 11, 1931, the board of directors of said district adopted an ordinance which determined that the interests of the district demand the acquisition and construction of a certain public improvement, namely, a water system for supplying its inhabitants with water from the Colorado River, and that the cost thereof was too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income of the district. The ordinance authorized the holding of a special election on September 29, 1931, to submit to the voters the proposition of incurring a bonded indebtedness of $220,000,000 for the purpose of…

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.