# City of Whittier v. Dixon

> California Supreme Court · August 11, 1944 · 24 Cal. 2d 664

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846418

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF WHITTIER Et Al., Petitioners, v. GUY N. DIXON, as City Clerk, Etc., Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 11, 1944
- **Citations:** 24 Cal. 2d 664; 151 P.2d 5; 153 A.L.R. 956; 1944 Cal. LEXIS 267
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Edmonds
- **Judges:** Traynor, Edmonds
- **Cited by:** 46 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/9846418

## Opinion text

EDMONDS, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting. I concur in the conclusion of my associates that the Vehicle Parking District Act of 1943 (Stats. 1943, p. 2859) is valid upon its face, but I again point out that a question of public interest is decided in a “friendly suit” to which only the city, its clerk, and the publisher of the municipality’s legal advertising are parties. In my opinion, such an action is collusive and for the reasons I have previously stated, should not be entertained by this court. (City and County of San Francisco v. Boyd, 22 Cal.2d 685, 707 [ 140 P.2d 666 ] ; and City and County of San Francisco v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 448 [ 106 P.2d 639 ].)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846418. Public record. Not legal advice.