Williams v. City of Oakland

Good Law
101 Cal. Rptr. 137·1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 1036·25 Cal. App. 3d 346
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 1972Civ. No. 29788California2,382 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rattigan, J.

This appeal is from a permanent injunction purporting to regulate some aspects of the procedure by which certain persons are released on bail after having been arrested on criminal charges.

The appeal has been taken on the judgment roll alone, which (as defined in Code Civ. Proc., § 670, subd. 2) consists of the complaint and answer, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the injunction; there is no evidentiary record. (See fn. 1 and accompanying text, post.) As the underlying facts and the effect of the injunction are not ade *348 quately disclosed by the judgment-roll documents or in the briefs, we are required to reconstruct them from an interpretation of the limited record. It shows as follows:

Plaintiffs are Theodore R. Williams and Lelma L. Williams. The named defendants are the City of Oakland, its police department, and its police chief. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint, among other things, (1) that they operate a bail bond agency in Oakland; (2) that “[defendants, and each of them,” had refused “to accept United States Treasury Bonds in lieu of surety bond or cash as and for bail for various defendants,” and (3) that “said acts are…

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.