Legal Opinion

Merced County v. Fleming

California Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1896No. Sac. 73PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order denying a new trial in an action to recover a liquor license imposed by an ordinance of the board of supervisors of the plaintiff county.

1. It is claimed that the court below erred in admitting in evidence the ordinance under which the action is prosecuted, and holding that it was regularly adopted, because it was not shown that it was adopted at a regular session of the board. The regular ordinance book of the board was produced from the qustody of the clerk, the official in whose keeping it belonged, and duly identified,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex Parte FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Merced County v. Helm & NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. In re GuerreroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. County of San Diego v. SeifertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. People v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. People v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Neuber v. Royal Realty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. City of Idaho Falls v. GrimmettIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
  4. City of Grafton v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1907
  5. State v. DaweIdaho Supreme Court · 1918

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

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

Powered by the Exa API