Legal Opinion

Ganley v. Claeys

California Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1935No. S. F. 14809PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment declaring void and of no effect an ordinance of the city of Martinez (No. 2 C. S.) entitled “An Ordinance of the City of Martinez regulating the hours and times for the carrying on and conducting of the business of barbering in the City of Martinez.” The ordinance in question provided that all barber shops should be closed from 6:30 P. M. of each day until 8 o’clock of the following morning except on Saturdays and days preceding holidays specified in the ordinance, on which days they should close at 8 o’clock P. M. and remain closed all day on Sundays and the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Ex parte JentzschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. State Ex Rel. Newman v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Falco v. Atlantic CitySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1923
  5. In Re LowenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Hall v. City of TaftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. City of Cincinnati v. CorrellOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Natural Milk Producers Ass'n v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. McKay Jewelers, Inc. v. BowronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. State Board of Barber Examiners v. CloudIndiana Supreme Court · 1942

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API