Legal Opinion
Rudolph v. Athletic Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 5, 1960No. Civ. 23548PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAshburn, J.
Prior to its revocation appellant Harry Rudolph, also known as Babe McCoy, held a license as boxing matchmaker issued to him by respondent Athletic Commission of the State of California. An accusation was duly filed charging him with nine separate and distinct counts of violations of sections 18681, 18682 and 18762 of the Business and Professions Code, and sections 436, 468, 470, 559 of title 4 of the California Administrative Code pertaining to boxing. The commission upheld all of said charges and ordered his license revoked upon each separate count. Rudolph thereupon sought mandate under…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Nash v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- People v. HustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Griggs v. Board of TrusteesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Ishimatsu v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Savelli v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Nightingale v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.