Legal Opinion
Hale v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided January 28, 1928No. 4 Div. 366PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The prosecution of defendant for doing business without a license is a test of the validity of section 16 of the Revenue Act of July 22, 1927. Gen. Acts of 1927, p. 156. The suggestion of invalidity by appellant is that the tax is confiscatory, prohibitive, and illegal.
The statute in question (section 16 of the General Revenue Act) concludes with the proviso that the section “shall not apply to any show operating in a theater regularly licensed” ; and section 79 .concludes as follows:
“If any section, clause, provision or portion of this act shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Lochner v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Crowley v. ChristensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Minnesota v. BarberSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- City of Bessemer v. Bessemer Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- Kelly v. HanwickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- City of Birmingham v. Hood-Mcpherson Realty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1935
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.