Legal Opinion

In Re Sidebotham

California Supreme Court

Decided December 13, 1938No. Crim. 4169PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, J.

Petitioner, after conviction and sentence for violation of certain provisions of the Real Estate Act, secured a writ of habeas corpus from the District Court of Appeal, and after a favorable decision in said court, was ordered discharged. Respondent sheriff then sought a hearing in this court. The sole issue before us is the constitutionality of the regulation of subdivisions under the terms of said act. (Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 112, sec. 20 et seq.)

Section 20a of the act provides that prior to the time when subdivided lands are offered for sale or lease, the owner, his agent or…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Wholesale Tobacco Dealers Bureau of Southern California, Inc. v. National Candy & Tobacco Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. People v. PaceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. In Re DixonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. In Re LifschutzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Serve Yourself Gasoline Stations Ass'n v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1991
  5. People v. ManchaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974

18 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