McCall v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Order No. 1589 of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, “imposing municipal licenses” provided among other things, as follows: “Seo. 1. Every person who shall violate any of the pro-, visions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment no…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Order No. 1589 of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, “imposing municipal licenses” provided among other things, as follows: “Seo. 1. Every person who shall violate any of the pro-, visions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment no more than six months or by both.” “Sec. 10. The rates of license shall be according to the following schedule:…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Lamar,
alter stating the case as above reported, ■delivered the opinion of the court.
There are three assignments of error which are reducible .to the single proposition that the order under which the plaintiff in error was convicted is repugnant to clause 3 of section 8, article 1, of the Constitution of the,. United States, commonly known as the “ commerce clause ” of the Constitution, in that it imposes a tax upon interstate commerce, and .that therefore the court below erred in not so deciding. and in rendering judgment against the plaintiff in error.
This proposition presents…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Leisy v. HardinSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- County of Mobile v. KimballSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by138 opinions
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Hooper v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- International Textbook Co. v. PiggSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Crutcher v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
133 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.