In Re Hart
California Court of Appeal
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro term.
The petitioner operates a mercantile business at an establishment within the city of Santa Monica and sells his commodities in the contiguous city of Venice, sales and deliveries being made by him after the manner which is employed by dealers in articles of the same character, which dealers have their places of business located within the limits of Venice. An ordinance of the last-named city provides for the licensing of certain businesses and contains a section to the following effect: “For every person . . . selling or contracting to sell articles” of various kinds,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ex parte HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Matter of ZanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Matter of Application of HinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bueneman v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- LaFranchi v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Grantham v. City of ChickashaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- E. A. Hoffman Candy Co. v. City of Newport BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- In Re RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.