People v. Laine
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
The district attorney of Sacramento County filed in the superior court a complaint praying that the property at No. 223 L Street, in the city of Sacramento, be enjoined as a nuisance, by virtue of the provisions of the so-called “Red-light Abatement Act.” (Stats. 1913, p. 20.) The premises, which are owned by the defendant, Laura B. Laine, are occupied by defendant Charles F. Gibney as a dance-hall, where approximately thirty-five girls- are employed. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and directing that the building and premises be kept closed for one year, etc. The appeal is by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Doolittle v. McConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- People v. HarroldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- House v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Ellis v. Central California Traction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
- People v. FaustCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. LimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- People v. LaparaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- People Ex Rel. Bradford v. ArcegaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- People Ex Rel. Bradford v. BurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- People v. AllingtonAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.