Legal Opinion
Ex parte Haskell
California Supreme Court
Decided April 14, 1896No. Crim. No. 112PublishedCited by 71 opinions
Hearing in the Supreme Court upon writ of habeas corpus to the marshal of Chico, Butte County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.
The city of Chico is a municipal corporation of the fifth class, having power as such to license, for purposes of regulation and revenue, all and every kind of business transacted or carried on in such city, and to fix rates of license tax upon the same, and provide for their collection. It has an ordinance which, among other provisions thereof relating to the revenue, has the following:
*416“ Persons, outside of those conducting regular places of business, selling different articles of apparel, dry goods, fancy goods, notions, jewelry, cutlery, groceries, harness, pianos, organs, machinery of all…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- MacHine Co. v. GageSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Ex Parte FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- City of Tarkio v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- City of St. Louis v. SternbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Bueneman v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Security Truck Line v. City of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Ex Parte LemonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- In Re ZhizhuzzaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.