Legal Opinion
Matter of Application of Prentice
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 14, 1914No. Crim. No. 248PublishedCited by 4 opinions
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Petitioner was convicted of the crime of conducting a business as master plumber in the city of Stockton without first having obtained a license therefor from the tax-collector of said city, in violation of the provisions of ordinance numbered 516 of said city.
It is claimed that said ordinance is unconstitutional and void because in conflict with the act of March 3, 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 12), as amended by act of March 9, 1887 (Stats. 1887, p. 58), an act entitled “An act to grant to boards of health or health officers, in cities, and cities and counties, the power to regulate the plumbing…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ex Parte BraunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Fragley v. PhelanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Ex Parte LemonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Ex Parte HelmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Ex Parte GreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
3Cited by4 opinions
- City & County of San Francisco v. BossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. City of ModestoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Shawnee Nat. Bank v. Van ZantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- In Re HitchcockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917