Legal Opinion
Dusenbury v. Chesney
Supreme Court of Florida
Decided April 4, 1929PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStrum, J.
In habeas corpus proceedings, instituted originally in this Court, it appears that petitioner, W. W. Dusenbury, is held in custody by the respondent upon a charge of having violated ordinance of the City of St. Petersburg No. 633-A, by conducting “a public auction sale of merchandise without having first procured from the Director of Finance of the City of St. Petersburg proper license so to do.”
The ordinance applies to “all sales at public auction of merchandise in the corporate limits of the City of St. Petersburg.” Amongst others, the ordinance contains the following provisions:
Section 4:…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Central Lumber Co. v. South DakotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Baccus v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Ex parte HarrellSupreme Court of Florida · 1918
- Curry v. OsborneSupreme Court of Florida · 1918
- Park v. MorganSupreme Court of Florida · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cook Coffee Co. v. Village of FlushingMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Perry Trading Co. v. City of TallahasseeSupreme Court of Florida · 1937
- Hamilton v. CollinsSupreme Court of Florida · 1934
- State Ex Rel. James v. GerrellSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
- State Ex Rel. Southern Roller Derbies, Inc. v. WoodSupreme Court of Florida · 1940
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.