Legal Opinion

People Ex Rel. Bradford v. Arcega

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 10, 1920No. Civ. No. 2148PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The action is prosecuted under what is known as the “Red-light Abatement Act” (Stats. 1913, p. 20).

The complaint alleges that the premises and building known as “No. 222 L Street,” in the city of Sacramento, and described as the “East one-half of Lot No. three, in the block or square bounded by and between L and M and Second and Third Streets of said city of Sacramento,” were, and for some time prior to the third day of January, 1918, “and ever since that date, and now are, used for the purposes of lewdness, assignation and prostitution, and upon said premises acts of lewdness, assignation…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Doolittle v. McConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  2. People Ex Rel. Bradford v. BarbiereCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  3. House v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Ellis v. Central California Traction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
  5. People v. Casa Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room TheaterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. People v. LimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. State Ex Rel. Wayne County Prosecutor v. Diversified Theatrical Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Dalbey's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. State Ex Rel. Murphy v. MorleyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1957

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API