In Re Kinney
California Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING on Habeas Corpus to secure release from custody after conviction of violation of municipal prohibition ordinance. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
Petitioner was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Fort Bragg, Hendocino County, prohibiting traffic in intoxicating liquors, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $225, and in default of the payment thereof to be imprisoned until its satisfaction at the rate of one day’s imprisonment for each dollar of said fine.
Three contentions are made by petitioner: “1. That the ordinance is without the powers of the board of trustees of the city; 2. That the ordinance is invalid for the reason that it attempts to delegate to the Congress of the United States legislative powers vested only…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Dowling v. Lancashire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- The People v. . Fire Association of Phil'A.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Ex Parte GerinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Arwine v. Board of Med. ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix v. GloverArizona Supreme Court · 1945
- People v. International Steel Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1951
- In Re BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- In Re AjuriaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- City of Sierra Madre v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.