Matter of Russell
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Chickering & Gregory, Trippet, Chapman & Biby, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, O’Melveney, Stevens & Milliken, Guy C. Earl, and H. H. Trowbridge, for Petitioner.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The petitioner alleges that he is in custody upon a charge of having violated an ordinance of the city of Los Angeles.
The ordinance referred to was approved by the mayor on February 21, 1912. It declares that it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to make any excavation in a street for any purpose without first obtaining permission in writing from the board of public works, and that before issuing the permit the board must require the applicant therefor to state the purpose for which the excavation is to be made and show legal authority to occupy and use the street for that…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Knoxville Water Co. v. KnoxvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- St. Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- In Re PetersenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- In Re QuinnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- County of Tulare v. City of DinubaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Higer v. HansenIdaho Supreme Court · 1946
- Story v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.