City of Sacramento v. Dillman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
On June 22, 1891, an ordinance “ regulating saloons, bar-rooms, etc., and providing the amounts of city licenses to be paid by keepers of saloons, bar-rooms, and other places where wines and liquors are sold,” was passed by the board of trustees of the city of Sacramento. The ordinance provided that every person within the limits of the city, who keeps a barroom, saloon, or other place where liquors are sold by the glass or bottle, to be drank on the premises, shall pay quarterly, in advance, “ a city license, for pursuing said business, of forty-five dollars for each and every *110quart…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- People v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- County of San Luis Obispo v. HendricksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- People v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pacific Palisades Ass'n v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Shubat v. Glacier CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1932
- Gay v. EngebretsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Berryhill v. City of SapulpaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- County of San Luis Obispo v. GreenbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.