In Re Kidd
California Court of Appeal
APPLICATION for writ of habeas corpus to test the validity of imprisonment for violation of an ordinance of the city of Riverside. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, P. J.
Application by petitioner for writ of habeas corpus based upon the claim that his imprisonment for the vio lation of an ordinance of the city of Riverside is illegal, because the ordinance so violated is unconstitutional and void.
This ordinance, regularly adopted, in plain terms prohibits the sale of all intoxicating liquors in said city by any person, except that the council may issue a permit to keepers of hotels having forty bedrooms or more to sell vinous and malt liquors served in the dining-room thereof as part of a regular meal. The ordinance is claimed to destroy petitioner’s right to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- In Re ZhizhuzzaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Foster v. Bd. of Police Comm'rsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- In re ParrottUnited States Circuit Court · 1880
3Cited by11 opinions
- Matter of EllsworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Ex Parte MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- E. A. Hoffman Candy Co. v. City of Newport BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Ritz v. LightstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- State Ex Rel. Bennett v. LeeSupreme Court of Florida · 1936
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.