# Alhambra City School District v. Mize

> California Supreme Court · June 30, 1970 · 2 Cal. 3d 806

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9621426

## Case

- **Full name:** ALHAMBRA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Et Al., Petitioners, v. JAMES S. MIZE, as Executive Offiicer-Clerk, Etc., Respondent; ALHAMBRA CITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Et Al., Petitioners, v. JAMES S. MIZE, as Executive Officer-Clerk, Etc., Respondent; PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Et Al., Petitioners, v. JAMES S. MIZE, as Executive Officer-Clerk, Etc., Respondent; RALPH R. RULE, Real Party in Interest; ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Et Al., Petitioners, v. JAMES S. MIZE, as Executive Officer-Clerk, Etc., Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 30, 1970
- **Citations:** 2 Cal. 3d 806; 87 Cal. Rptr. 867; 471 P.2d 515; 1970 Cal. LEXIS 307
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Sullivan, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 3 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/9621426

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur in the conclusion that the two-thirds majority requirement violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but I dissent from the denial of relief to these petitioners, for the reasons discussed in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Westbrook v. Mihaly, ante, p. 765 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ].
The prevailing rationale in Westbrook that the elections are now forgotten is particularly inapposite in these cases. Here, after the majority—but not two-thirds—vote in the elections, the governing board of each district adopted a resolution calling upon the county board of supervisors to sell the bonds for which the propositions had sought approval, and the board acquiesced. Again, as in Westbrook , the majority of the court tell the several boards that their interpretation of the law was correct and we adopt *812 their conclusion. And again, inexplicably, the court denies affirmative relief. This result is impossible to rationalize.
I would issue the peremptory writ of mandate. Mr. Justice Peters has authorized me to say he would also issue the writ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9621426. Public record. Not legal advice.