In Re Application of Galusha
California Supreme Court
PROCEEDING on Habeas Corpus to secure release of attorney at law for violation of occupation tax ordinance. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Eugene D. Williams, Benjamin E. Page, Arthur C. Hurt, Hugh M. Bole, J. R. Scott and Eugene Overton for Petitioner. Irwin W. Widney, City Prosecutor, Charles S. Burnell, City Attorney, and Wm. P. Mealey, Assistant City Attorney, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.
Petitioner was arrested and held in custody under the charge of carrying on the profession of attorney at law in the city of Los Angeles without paying the license tax imposed upon persons engaged in that profession by section 152 of the ordinance of the said city of Los Angeles, designated as No. 39,600 (new series). In the present proceeding petitioner questions the validity of the tax thus imposed. The only feature of the ordinance attacked is its application to the profession of attorney at law, and the single question presented to this court for determination in this case is whether or…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Ex Parte BraunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- City of St. Louis v. LaughlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- In Re NowakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- City of Sonora v. CurtinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- City of St. Louis v. SternbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Brydonjack v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Cammer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- West Coast Advertising Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- City of Pasadena v. CharlevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Ainsworth v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.