Ex parte Wall
California Supreme Court
By an Act of the Legislature of this State, approved March 18, 1874, it was provided that, whenever one fourth of the legal voters of any township, incorporated city, or town, should petition the Board of Supervisors of the county in which the township, incorporated city or town was situated, to call a special election to vote upon the question of “liquor license,” or “no liquor license,” the Board of Supervisors must, within one month after the petition was filed, call a…
Read the full summary
By an Act of the Legislature of this State, approved March 18, 1874, it was provided that, whenever one fourth of the legal voters of any township, incorporated city, or town, should petition the Board of Supervisors of the county in which the township, incorporated city or town was situated, to call a special election to vote upon the question of “liquor license,” or “no liquor license,” the Board of Supervisors must, within one month after the petition was filed, call a special election in the township, incorporated city, or town, to vote upon the-question of license to retail liquor. That…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
Under the Act of March, 18, 1874, “To permit the voters of every township or incorporated city to vote on the question of granting licenses to sell intoxicating liquors,” an election was held in the Fourth Township of Contra Costa County, at which a majority of the votes were cast “ against license."
The petitioner was afterward convicted of an alleged violation of the law, as declared by the statute, and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail.
The power to make laws conferred by the Constitution on the Legislature cannot be delegated by the Legislature to the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Barto v. . HimrodNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- The Cargo of the Brig Aurora, Burn Side v. The United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Bank of Rome v. . the Village of RomeNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- State v. SwisherTexas Supreme Court · 1856
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Joytime Distributors & Amusement Co. v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- People v. LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- In Re PfahlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- In re a Writ of Habeas Corpus for SharpIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Johnson v. Martin, Wise & FitzhughCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.