Legal Opinion
Stull v. De Mattos
Washington Supreme Court
Decided September 6, 1900No. 3295PublishedCited by 32 opinions
Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County. —Hon. Hiram E. Hadley, Judge.
1Opinion of the Court
*72Tlie opinion of the court was delivered by
Fullerton, J.
The city of New Whatcom, by the terms of the general law under which it is incorporated (Bal. Code, § 938, subd. 10) has power:
“To license, for purposes of regulation and revenue, all and every kind of business, including the sale of intoxicating liquors, authorized by law, and transacted and carried on in such city, and all shows, exhibitions and lawful games carried on therein and within one mile of the corporate limits thereof, to fix the rate of license tax upon the same, and to provide for the collection of the same by stiit or…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- City of Newton v. AtchisonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- People v. ThurberIllinois Supreme Court · 1852
- Fleetwood v. ReadWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- Champer v. City of GreencastleIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- City of Ottumwa v. ZekindSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. ClausenWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Salt Lake City v. Christensen Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1908
- Steinberg-Baum & Co. v. Dayton CountrymanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
- Wingfield v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.