Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Frank

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1878No. 10,315PublishedCited by 57 opinions

Application for discharge on habeas corpus.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

The petitioner having been convicted of a misdemeanor for the violation of what is known as the “ Sample-Sellers’ Ordinance ” of the City and County of San Francisco, and being restrained of his liberty upon process issued upon the judgment of conviction, is before us on a writ of habeas corpus, and claims that he is entitled to be discharged from custody, on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutional and void.

The ordinance in effect provides that any person who, in the City and County of San Francisco, shall sell, or contract to sell, or cause to be sold, or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. City of St. Louis v. WeberSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
  3. Herzo v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  4. Wallace v. Mayor of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Ex Parte BraunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Ex parte HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Ainsworth v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  4. In Re NowakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Bueneman v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

52 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