Ex parte Kohler
California Supreme Court
Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
The petitioner was convicted in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco of the crime of misdemeanor, committed in violation of the provisions of 'an act of the legislature of the state of California, entitled “An act to prohibit the sophistication and adulteration of wine, and to prevent fraud in the manufacture and sale thereof,” approved March 7, 1887. (Stats. 1887, p. 46.)
The salient provisions of the act are as follows:—
Section 1 defines pure wine for the purposes of the act. Section 2 prohibits the using of deleterious substitute^ in the fermentation, preservation, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barnes v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- People v. TisdaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by23 opinions
- Bronco Wine Company v. JollyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Law v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California v. SwoapCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Gregory v. HeckeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Matter of MaginnisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.