Legal Opinion

In Re Miller

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 6, 1910No. Crim. No. 119PublishedCited by 7 opinions

PETITION for writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The petitioner was charged in the justice court of Bridgeport township, county of Mono, with misdemeanor in having commenced and carried on within said county “the business of raising, grazing, herding and pasturing cattle without having taken out or procured a license therefor, as required by an ordinance of the board of supervisors of said county. ’ ’

The said ordinance requires on the part of everyone engaged in such business the payment to the tax collector of the sum of seven cents for each cow, heifer, bull or bullock owned by, in the- possession or under the control of such person and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Ex parte WhitwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Country of Plumas v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Ex parte MansfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. In Re GowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. City of Portland v. State BankOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  2. In Re GilstrapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Hendershott v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  4. In Re OrtizCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. In Re BocciCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API