imperative challenge in California

1980(See also Swan v. Talbot (1907) 152 Cal. 143 , 144 [ 94 P. 238 ].) Also pertinent are these widely known comments of Justice Rehnquist in 1972: “Every litigant is entitled to have his case heard by a judge mindful of [the federal] oath.

1980(See also Swan v. Talbot (1907) 152 Cal. 143 , 144 [ 94 P. 238 ].) Also pertinent are these widely known comments of Justice Rehnquist in 1972: "Every litigant is entitled to have his case heard by a judge mindful of [the federal] oath.

1980Its potential impact was documented in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 ]; cf. Martini, Legislators Urged to End Affidavit of Trial Judges, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (Dec. 12, 1979) page 1; letter from Maynard Craig, id., (Jan. 10, 1980) page 4.

1980Its potential impact was documented in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 ]; cf. Martini, Legislators Urged to End Affidavit of Trial Judges, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (Dec. 12, 1979) page 1; letter from Maynard Craig, id., (Jan. 10, 1980) page 4.

1921Co., 56 Cal. 431 , the court had before it this identical question, and it there held: “It is, however, an imperative rule that before making an application for a writ of mandamus, an express demand or request must be made on the defendant to perform the act sought to be enforced by the writ; and the demand should be definite and specific.” In that case it was held that the petitioner had not demanded any specific quantity of water before filing his application for a writ of mandate. [4] Hence, admitting that the petitioner, under the conditions as they now exist in the Anderson-Cottonwood Irr

1902Co. v. Plumas County, 37 Cal. 354 , where it was said: “It is, however, an imperative rule that before making an application for a writ of mandamus an express demand or request must be made on defendants to perform the act sought to be enforced by the writ. ’ ’ Appealing from the judgment, plaintiff concedes the general rule to be as above stated, but contends that this case falls within the exception, “Where a demand would be useless it will not be required.” Conceding that the rule admits of the exception, the facts shown in the complaint must be such as will justify the court in giving effe

1884One’s absence from a particular place raises no presumption of his death, no matter how long such absence is continued if there is no evidence that he ever established his residence there, but his absence from his established home or residence must be proved, and that no intelligence has been received of him for seven years or more: Stinchfield v. Emerson, 52 Me. 465 , 83 Am.

1884The presumption of death from long-continued absence is not an imperative rule of law where the circumstances of the disappearance permit of a different inference: Winter v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias, 96 Mo. App. 1 , 69 S. W. 662 .

1884The presumption of death from long-continued absence is not an imperative rule of law where the circumstances of the disappearance permit of a different inference: Winter v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias, 96 Mo. App. 1 , 69 S. W. 662 .

1869“It is an imperative rule of the law of mandamus that, previously to the making of the application to the Court for the writ to command the performance of a particular act, an express and distinct demand or request to perform it must have been made by the prosecutor to the defendant, who must have refused to comply with such demand, either in direct terms or by conduct from which a refusal can be conclusively implied, it being due to the defendant to have the option of either doing or refusing to do that which is required of him, before an application shall be made to the Court for the purpose

1866(Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt, 21 Barb. 26.) The evidence shows a misjoinder of the plaintiff Potter, and the defendant, under the imperative rule of the statute, should have taken advantage of the defect by answer. ■ The rule, in case the defect does not appear upon the face of the complaint, is as inflexible as when it does appear there; and the presumption of a waiver of the objection, when there is in truth a misjoinder, though not appearing on the face of the complaint, and the defendant has failed to take the objection by answer, is as conclusive as when it does appear upon the face of the com