Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pearce v. Moffatt

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1939No. 6664Published

1Dissent

BUDGE, J.,

Dissenting. — There appears little room for argument that professions, trades, callings, or occupations, which because of their intimate relation to public health, including the occupation of barber, may be regulated by legislative act, and municipal ordinance when such power has been granted the municipality, under the police power, enabling the state or such municipality to make needful rules and regulations for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Neither the legislature nor municipal authority can, however, under guise of police power, impose upon barber shops…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Ex parte JentzschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Cooper v. RollinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  4. Patton v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Chaires v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927

9 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