Ex parte Sisto Li Proti
California Supreme Court
Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
— The sole point presented by the petitioner is, that he is illegally restrained of his liberty, because he is held for a violation of a certain ordinance of the city of Oakland, which, it is claimed, violates that provision of the charter of the city which declares that “licenses shall be discriminating and proportionate to the amount of business.” (Stats. 1862, p. 353.)
The portion of the ordinance which it is claimed violates this provision of the charter is section 14 of an ordinance entitled “An ordinance establishing-and regulating municipal licenses,” and which reads as follows: “For…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Ex Parte LemonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- State ex rel. Toi v. FrenchMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Fernan v. City of Palo AltoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Bramman v. City of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- City of Los Angeles v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.