Legal Opinion
Ex parte Chin Yan
California Supreme Court
Decided February 4, 1882No. 10,716PublishedCited by 16 opinions
Application for discharge on writ of habeas corpus. Robert Ashe, for Petitioner.
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton, J.:
In this case, the Petitioner, Chin Tan, was convicted in the Police Court of the city and county of San Francisco under Section 33 of Order No. 1,587 of the city and county, of a misdemeanor, in visiting a place for the practice of gambling. The above section is in these words:
“Sec. 33. No person shall, in that portion of the city and county bounded by Larkin, Market, Church, Eighteenth, and Channel streets, and the water front, keep or maintain, or become an inmate of, or a visitor to, or shall in any way contribute to the support of any disorderly house, or house of ill-fame,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- City of St. Paul v. ColterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866
- City of Brooklyn v. . BreslinNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Desmond v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Earle v. Board of Education of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Town of Crown PointIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
- Champer v. City of GreencastleIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- State v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Ex parte MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- City of Fayetteville v. CarterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.