Laurelle v. Bush
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Percy V. Long, City Attorney, and J. F. English, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, P. J.
The plaintiff in the above-entitled proceeding petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate, requiring and compelling the defendant, as the tax collector and ex officio license collector of the city and county of San Francisco, to issue to plaintiff a license to engage in the moving picture business. The petition for the writ in the main alleged that on the third day of March, 1911, the plaintiff tendered to defendant, in his official capacity as tax and license collector, the sum of $25, the amount fixed by ordinance as a license fee for opening and operating a moving picture…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ex Parte Quong WoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- In re FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- County of Los Angeles v. SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Ex parte FiskeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- In re GuerreroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B.Utah Supreme Court · 2017
- Dominguez Land Corp. v. DaughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Brown v. StubbsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1916
- Ex Parte StrauchCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1945
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.