Legal Opinion
Graham v. Kingwell
California Supreme Court
Decided August 8, 1933No. Docket No. Sac. 4778PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.
Alleging that the California Apiary Inspection Act (Stats. 1927, p. 1724, as amended, now part of Agricultural Code, Stats. 1933, chap. 25), is unconstitutional, plaintiff brought this action to enjoin the defendants, in their official capacities, from enforcing its provisions. The defendants demurred both generally and specially. Plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment sustaining the general demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing the action.
On this appeal plaintiff urges that the act in question does not constitute a proper exercise of the police power and that it contravenes…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Miller v. SchoeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- State v. MainSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- People v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- County of Los Angeles v. SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Wholesale Tobacco Dealers Bureau of Southern California, Inc. v. National Candy & Tobacco Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
- City of Miami Beach v. WiesenSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
- Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Hart v. City of Beverly HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Coelho v. TruckellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.