Ex parte Taylor
California Supreme Court
Application to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
The petitioner is convicted of a violation of an ordinance of the city of San José in relation to streets and sidewalks.
It is claimed that the ordinance is void, because in conflict with the constitution and with general law, by reason whereof the city council had no authority to pass the same.
The city of San José is a municipal corporation existing under a special charter passed before the adoption of the present constitution. By section 9 of that charter the council is authorized and empowered “to pass all necessary and proper laws; .... to lay out, alter, vacate, improve, cleanse, water,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In re SicCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Hoadley v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- City of Visalia v. JacobCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- People v. PopeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
- Marini v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Patton v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Strong v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- W. States Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bayside Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Vanderhurst v. TholckeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Martinovich v. WooleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.