Legal Opinion

In Re Iverson

California Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1926No. Docket No. Crim. 2839PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

Alfred Iverson, in whose behalf a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed, is a regularly licensed and registered pharmacist, and at the time of his arrest, which it is alleged resulted in his unlawful detention, was employed in a retail drugstore in the city of Los Angeles. His prosecution in the police court was based upon the alleged violation of a provision in an ordinance of the city of Los Angeles, an initiative measure known as the Gandier Ordinance, adopted prior to the time the general prohibition law of the state, known as the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79), became…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. In Re HoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Mann v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. In re SicCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. In Re MingoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. In Re LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Lenci v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  4. HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Chavez v. SargentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959

42 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