Ex parte Prindle
California Supreme Court
Application by Lyman D. Prindle for a writ of habeas corpus.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The defendant was arrested for the violation of ordinance No. 120 (new series), enacted on the sixteenth day of May, 1905, by the board of supervisors of Los Angeles county. Section 1 of the ordinance provides: “It shall be unlawful in the county of Los Angeles, between the thirtieth day of June and the fifteenth day of August of each year, and between the fifteenth day of August of each year and the sixteenth day of February of the year next ensuing, for any person to hunt, pursue, take, kill or destroy, or have in his possession, any dove or doves.” Upon trial the defendant pleaded guilty,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Murdock v. City of MemphisSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Supervisors v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Ex parte MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hayes v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Asplund v. AlaridNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923
- Ferrell v. KeelSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- State v. WardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Matter of Application of CencininoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916