Ex parte Christensen
California Supreme Court
Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
The petitioner was arrested upon a charge of misdemeanor, consisting in the carrying on of the business of a retail liquor dealer in the city of San Francisco, without a license.
*210He contends that the ordinance prescribing the license is void, for various reasons: —
1. The original order numbered 1589 was passed in 1880. In 1866 subdivision 39 of section 10 of this order (which relates to liquor licenses) was amended by order 1845, and it is contended that this amendatory order was not properly passed and published in accordance,, with the provisions of the county government act.
But we…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Martin v. SplivaloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by64 opinions
- In Re PetersenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Ex parte HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Country of Plumas v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- In re FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Fitzpatrick v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.