City of Rochester v. Crittenden Park Riding Academy, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
The city of Rochester had the undoubted power to enact the prior ordinance in question. It also had the power to repeal it. (Rochester City Charter, Laws of 1907, chap. 755.) This power was not limited to the repeal of the entire ordinance. It might repeal the ordinance in part and continue it in part. This is the effect of the so-called “ saving clause ” in the later ordinance. It provides for the repeal of the existing ordinance, except as to offenses committed thereunder which “ may be * * * prosecuted * * * as fully and to the same extent as if such repeal had not been effected.” This…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- City of Kansas v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Naylor v. City of GalesburgIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Barton v. Incorporation of GadsdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- City of Birmingham v. BarancoAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- Miles v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Overton v. Camden CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002