Legal Opinion
People v. Skinner
California Supreme Court
Decided July 30, 1941No. Sac. 5360PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
On rehearing, we approve and adopt the opinion rendered herein on the former hearing, as follows:
“The defendant moved to set aside as void a so-called ‘judgment’ entered in accordance with the provisions of section 26 of the ‘Retail Sales Act of 1933’ as amended (Stats. 1935, p. 1262 [Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 8493]). The plaintiff appealed from the judgment entered on the trial court’s order granting the motion.
‘ ‘ The appeal presents the question of' the correctness of the trial court’s conclusion that the provisions of said section 26 are unconstitutional.
“Th'e defendant conducted as…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Bull v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Davidson v. New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Springer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Modern Barber Colleges, Inc. v. California Employment Stabilization CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Mudd v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- State Board of Equalization v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Sherman v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- County of Sacramento v. Assessment Appeals Board No. 2California Court of Appeal · 1973
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.