Legal Opinion
Sivertsen v. City of Menlo Park
California Supreme Court
Decided January 31, 1941No. S. F. 15974PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal after the sustaining of a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint, without leave to amend.
It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff was a painting contractor, duly licensed by the State of California, with his principal place of business in the city of Palo Alto; that he had contracted to do certain painting in the City of Menlo Park; and that while performing such work he was threatened with arrest by defendant Carroll, as Chief of Police of Menlo Park, for nonpayment of a license fee as provided by City Ordinance No. 76. The pertinent part of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Singer Sewing MacHine Co. v. BrickellSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Ex parte HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Ex Parte FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Bueneman v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Richmond Linen Supply Co. v. City of LynchburgSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Security Truck Line v. City of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- City & County of San Francisco v. BossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- John Tennant Memorial Homes, Inc. v. City of Pacific GroveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- McClain v. City of South PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Houston v. KirschwingSupreme Court of Colorado · 1947
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.