Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Application of Dees

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 19, 1920No. Crim. No. 887PublishedCited by 13 opinions

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner ordered discharged. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBrittain, J.

The petitioner was arrested for violation of section 58 of Ordinance No. 3361, New Series, of the city and county of San Francisco, which is designated as “Imposing License Taxes on certain Businesses, Callings, Trades or Employments,” etc. Section 58 is as follows:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell in the City and County of San Francisco any theater ticket or opera ticket, or ticket of admission to a place of amusement or entertainment at any place other than the office of the management of said theater, place of amusement or entertainment, without having first taken out and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Treat v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  3. Ex parte WhitwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Ex Parte QuargCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Merced County v. Helm & NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Barker Bros., Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. City & County of San Francisco v. BossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Phillips v. City of BendOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  4. In Re DeesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  5. Bleon v. EmeryUtah Supreme Court · 1922

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API