Legal Opinion
In Re Porterfield
California Supreme Court
Decided April 30, 1946No. Crim. 4555Published
1Opinion of the Court
28 Cal.2d 91 (1946)
In re JAMES PORTERFIELD, on Habeas Corpus.
Crim. No. 4555.
Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
Apr. 30, 1946.
Clarence E. Todd for Petitioner.
Tobriner & Lazarus, Mathew O. Tobriner, P. H. McCarthy, Jr., F. Nason O'Hara, George G. Olshausen and Wayne M. Collins as Amici Curiae, on behalf of Petitioner.
Glenn D. Newton, City Attorney (Redding), for Respondent.
SCHAUER, J.
Petitioner James Porterfield, a labor organizer, stands convicted of violating Ordinance No. 251 of the city of Redding (now incorporated in the Redding Municipal Code). Such ordinance prohibits soliciting for…
2Cases cited79 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington)Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Stromberg v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.