Legal Opinion
Town of Sumner v. Ward
Washington Supreme Court
Decided August 9, 1923No. 17912PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFullerton, J.
— The facts of this cause are stipulated. It appears that, on June 26, 1922, the, town of *76Sumner, a municipal corporation, enacted an ordinance [No. 280], the provisions of which, material for consideration here, read as follows:
“Sec. 1. No person or persons, firm or corporation, shall peddle or offer for sale by going from house to house at the private residences in the Town of Sumner, any teas, coffees, wool or cotton piece goods, stockings, furs, or wearing apparel, extracts, groceries, meat, fish, confectionery, stationery, aluminum ware, brushes, vacuum cleaners, carpet sweepers, washing…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Gundling v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- State ex rel. Makris v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1920
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Stiner v. YelleWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Northern Cedar Co. v. FrenchWashington Supreme Court · 1924
- Texas Company v. CohnWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- Standow v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1977
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1933
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.