In Re Nowak
California Supreme Court
PROCEEDING in Habeas Corpus to secure the release of petitioner for violation of occupational tax ordinance. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Henry N. James, J. P. Chandler, Paul H. McPherrin and Rex Hardy for Petitioner. Erwin W. Widney, City Prosecutor, J. D. Taggart, Deputy City Prosecutor, Charles S. Burnell, City Attorney, Wm. P. Healey, Assistant City Attorney, and Julius Y. Patrosso, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the Court
LENNON, J
Petitioner was arrested for the commission of an alleged misdemeanor, namely, the violation of an ordinance of the city of Los Angeles, No. 39,600 (new series). This ordinance is a rather complex piece of municipal legislation, the numerous sections or subdivisions of which attempt an elaborate classification of various businesses or callings as a basis for the imposition of an occupation tax, differing in amount in the case of different businesses. The precise offense charged against petitioner consisted in conducting, managing and carrying on the business of a retail grocer in the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Buchanan v. WarleySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- New York Ex Rel. Hatch v. ReardonSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. v. BlaggSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Clark v. TitusvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- In Re TrombleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- West Coast Advertising Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Roth Drug, Inc. v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- City of Pasadena v. CharlevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.