Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Robinson

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 23, 1924No. Crim. No. 800PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

The petitioner in this cause was arrested for having failed to take out a license, pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of Ordinance 159, 4th series, of the city of Sacramento, and seeks his discharge herein on the ground that the provisions of said ordinance, under and by virtue of which he was arrested, are unconstitutional and void.

Section 74 of said ordinance, among other things, provides as follows: “A solicitor within the meaning of this ordinance is defined to be any person who goes from house to house, or from place to place in the City of Sacramento, selling or taking orders for,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Ex parte HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Ex Parte FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Ex Parte DickeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Ex Parte HaydenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Bueneman v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Cook Coffee Co. v. Village of FlushingMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  3. LaFranchi v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Grantham v. City of ChickashaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
  5. Slater v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1949

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API