# Staude v. Board of Election Commissioners

> California Supreme Court · August 24, 1882 · 61 Cal. 313

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5440903

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN STAUDE v. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 24, 1882
- **Citations:** 61 Cal. 313; 1882 Cal. LEXIS 605
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Myrick
- **Judges:** Myrick, Ross, Sharpstein
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5440903

## Opinion text

Myrick, J., concurring:
In dissenting from the judgments of the Court in Barton v. Kalloch, 56 Cal. 95 , and Wood v. Election Commissioners, *324 58 Cal. 561 , and in concurring in the judgment in Treadwell v. Supervisors, 8 P. C. L. J. 74, I had occasion to express my views as to the force and effect of the Constitution of 1879 in controlling elections and terms of office throughout the State. I see no reason for changing the views .then expressed. I thought then, and I think now, that by the Constitution all elections for all persons to be elected to office by the people are to be held in November of the even numbered years, and that the terms of office are to commence in January, following; that this is the uniform rule throughout the State, including the City and County of San Francisco; and that in regard to elections, as well as in regard to some other matters (McDonald v. Patterson, 54 Cal. 245 ), the Consolidation Act of the city and county is to give place to the general rule prescribed. I therefore concur in the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5440903. Public record. Not legal advice.