Ex Parte Yung
California Court of Appeal
APPLICATION for discharge on writ of habeas corpus addressed to the constable of Orange Township, County of Orange. H. A. Miller, Constable. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTaggart, J.
Habeas corpus. Petitioner is under arrest and in the custody of a constable of Orange township, county of Orange, charged with violating the provisions of Ordinance No. 49 of said county, entitled: “An Ordinance Prohibiting the Business of Selling . . . Intoxicating Liquors, within the County of Orange, ’ ’ etc.
The illegality of his imprisonment is claimed to be because ordinance No. 49 was passed and enacted in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the County Government Act of 1897 which was declared to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of the state in Ex parte Anderson, 134…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ex parte HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Cronin v. . People of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Mayor of New York v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery R. R.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Mayor of Baltimore v. UlmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1894
- Ex Parte AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- O. T. Johnson Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Viscount Air Services, Inc. v. Cole (In Re Viscount Air Services, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · 1998
- Ex Parte YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- City of Birmingham v. AbernathySupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.