Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Porterfield

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 28, 1944No. Crim. 1832Published

1Dissent

*538PEEK, J., I dissent.

At the outset I cannot agree with the majority opinion that the activities of petitioner were such as to constitute him a solicitor of memberships “for compensation” under the provisions of said act.

The only evidence in this regard is that of the tax collector of the city of Redding, who testified that petitioner stated to him that his salary would be the same whether he obtained any members or not; that part of his duties were to solicit members but that nothing was said about petitioner being paid for such solicitation. Counsel for respondent testified that petitioner…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington)Supreme Court of the United States · 1939

29 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