Cuthbert v. Woodman
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles S. Burnell, City Attorney, and Wm. P. Mealey, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtSloane, J.
The city of Los Angeles has appealed from a judgment of the superior court of the county of Los Angeles enjoining the mayor, chief of police, and members of the council of said city from enforcing section 54, and the penalties pertaining thereto, of an ordinance of the city providing for licensing and regulating certain trades, professions, and occupations.
The section in question imposes a license tax as follows: “Sec. 54. For every person, firm or corporation conducting, managing or carrying on the business of collecting debts, claims or demands and known as a collection agency, $100 per…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grenada County Supervisors v. BrogdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Ex parte HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Golden & Co. v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Matter of Application of AnixterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by9 opinions
- Glassell Development Co. v. Citizens' Natlional Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Fay v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Hart v. City of Beverly HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Carlton Santee Corp. v. Padre Dam Municipal Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Carr v. KingsburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.