Legal Opinion
People v. Osborne
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 23, 1936No. Cr. A. 1328PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.
Defendant was charged with and convicted of a violation of section 4 of Ordinance No. C-1389 of the city of Long Beach. Such ordinance by its terms relates exclusively to the barbering business and provides in material part as follows:
“See. 4. Prices of services shall not be advertised in any publication, handbill or notice whatsoever. Price lists may be displayed in any barber shop but shall be so displayed as not to be visible from outside the shop. No advertising of prices shall be allowed on windows or on the outside of buildings or on the street or sidewalk. ’ ’
“Sec. 6. Any person…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- In re ShortridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Ex parte JentzschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Varney & Green v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- In Re BoehmeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- International Ass'n of Cleaning & Dye House Workers v. LandowitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- State v. HobsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1951
- Viale v. FoleyNevada Supreme Court · 1960
- Doyle v. Board of Barber ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.