Legal Opinion
Ex parte Bohen
California Supreme Court
Decided December 17, 1896No. Crim. No. 165PublishedCited by 19 opinions
Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court to test the validity of an ordinance of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The petitioner was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city and county of San Fran*373cisco, and has sued out a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of testing the validity of the ordinance. The ordinance is as follows:
“Order No. 2950. Prohibiting the further purchase of lots for burial purposes within the city and county of San Francisco; also providing for further burials being made only in lots heretofore acquired by persons or associations for burial purposes.
“ Whereas, the unlimited burial of the dead within the city and county of San Francisco is dangerous to life and detrimental to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Chicago v. RumpffIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Tugman v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Mayor of Hudson v. ThorneNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
- Coates v. Mayor, Aldermen, & Commonalty of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- State v. MahnerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- County of Los Angeles v. Hollywood Cemetery Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Mordecai v. Board of Supervisors of County of MaderaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Tweel v. West Virginia Racing CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1953
- Baxley v. City of FrederickSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Grumbach v. LelandeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.