Legal Opinion

City of Sonora v. Curtin

California Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1902No. Sac. No. 969PublishedCited by 41 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

COOPER, C.

Plaintiff recovered judgment in a civil action against defendant for three dollars, the amount claimed to be due for refusing to take out a license, and for the further sum of ten dollars penalty and costs of suit. Defendant appeals from the judgment.

On June 4, 1900, the board of Trustees of the city of Sonora passed an ordinance which contained the following provisions:—

“Section 1. Any person doing any business, or engaged in any pursuit hereinafter named, within the city of Sonora shall, before commencing such business or engaging in such pursuit, obtain from the city marshal a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ex parte WhitwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Napa State Hospital v. FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Spears v. Cty. of ModocCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. City & County of San Francisco v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Ex parte TuttleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District v. MannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Ex Parte BraunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. In Re Application of GalushaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. People v. SchmitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  5. City & County of San Francisco v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1913

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API