Legal Opinion
Hill v. City of Eureka
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 13, 1939No. Civ. 6213PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PULLEN, P. J. —
Plaintiff's, attorneys at law, duly licensed to practice as such, and engaged in the practice of their profession in the City of Eureka, brought this action for declaratory relief to determine the respective rights and duties of the parties hereto, in so far as such rights and duties are affected by Ordinance No. 859 of the City of Eureka.
From a judgment of the trial court holding that the City of Eureka had the power and authority under its charter to pass the ordinance in question providing for the collection of a license tax for revenue purposes on the business of practicing…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ex Parte BraunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- American Co. v. City of LakeportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Ex Parte FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- In Re Application of GalushaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Merced County v. Helm & NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of San Mateo v. MullinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Estate of TkachukCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Lever Bros. Co. v. District of Columbia. District of Columbia v. Lever Bros. CoCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1953
- Ball v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Todd Shipyards Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.