Legal Opinion

Ex parte Cox

California Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1883PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

The petitionerwas convicted of a misdemeanor, consisting' of the violation of a rule and regulation of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners. The powers attempted to be exercised by the officers and commissioners are specified in the Act of March 4,1871. (Stats. 1881, p. 51.)

The act declares that the officer shall have power, subject to the approval of the board, to declare and enforce rules and regulations in the nature of quarantine, to govern the manner of, and restrain or prohibit the importation into the State and the distribution and disposal within the State, of infected vines,…

2Cited by18 opinions

  1. People v. SidenerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Ex parte McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. In Re PeppersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Gilgert v. Stockton Port DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Board of Harbor Commissioners v. Excelsior Redwood Co.California Supreme Court · 1891

13 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