Ex Parte Young
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriff of the County of Orange. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
The petitioner was convicted of maintaining in the county of Orange, a saloon where intoxicating liquors were sold contrary to the provisions of ordinance 49 of that county entitled: “An ordinance prohibiting the business of selling . . . intoxicating liquors within the county of Orange,” etc., and sues out this writ under which he attacks the validity of said ordinance and the legality of his imprisonment upon conviction for a violation of it.
The validity of this same ordinance was heretofore presented for determination to the district court of appeals for the second appellate district at…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Stone v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Kidd v. PearsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Matter of EllsworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- O. T. Johnson Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- San Jose Peace Officer's Assn. v. City of San JoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Billington v. CotnerOhio Supreme Court · 1971
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.