In Re Hoffman
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. R. A. Ling, Powers & Holland, and John J. Fleming, for Petitioner. Leslie R. Hewitt, City Attorney, Lewis R. Works, Assistant City Attorney, and Guy Eddie, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Habeas corpus. The city of Los Angeles passed an ordinance, No. 13,171 (new series), regulating the sale of milk and cream. The ordinance contained many regulatory provisions making for hygienic conditions which are not necessary here to consider, for the petitioner was charged with and convicted of a violation of a single section of the ordinance. That section is number 9 and fixes the standard of milk sold in the city. It does this in the following language :—
“Section 9. The standard of milk ... in and for the city of Los Angeles is hereby defined and prescribed as follows:
“For Milk:
“Total…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Ex parte ShenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- In Re MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- City of Bellingham v. CissnaWashington Supreme Court · 1906
- Van Blaricum v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by86 opinions
- Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- In Re LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Cohen v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.