Legal Opinion

People v. Dillman

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 3, 1918No. Civ. No. 1771PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The action was commenced on July 13, 1917, by the district attorney of the county of Sacramento to secure an injunction enjoining the use of certain real property in the city of Sacramento belonging to appellant, Marguerite Home, for immoral purposes under the so-called “Red-light Abatement Act.” (Stats. 1913, p. 20.) A trial was had 'and the court found that on and prior to July 8, 1917, the building referred to was used for the purposes of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution, and was a nuisance. Judgment was entered that appellants “do perpetually and absolutely desist and refrain from…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People Ex Rel. Bradford v. BarbiereCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Hicks v. Sarong GalsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  2. People Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1983
  3. People Ex Rel. Bradford v. ArcegaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. In Re SelowskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  5. People ex rel. Gwinn v. KothariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000

8 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