Legal Opinion
In Re Bock
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 18, 1932No. Docket No. 1661PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.
Petitioner was arrested upon a charge of violating a county ordinance passed by the supervisors of the county of Marin and known as Ordinance No. 206. He seeks his release upon habeas corpus.
The ordinance was passed on March 15, 1932, and took effect thirty days thereafter. In its entirety it reads as follows:
“Ordinance No. 2'06.
“An ordinance defining the terms ‘Substitute for Butter’, and requiring persons, firms and corporations manufacturing, buying, selling, dealing in or furnishing or having in possession for any purpose other than consumption in his own family a substitute for butter to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Holden v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The People v. . MarxNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Weaver v. Palmer Brothers Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- In Re SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Ex Parte FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Clary v. Borough of EatontownNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Brackman v. KruseMontana Supreme Court · 1948
- Davis v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- In Re GrittonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Brackman v. KruseMontana Supreme Court · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.