Legal Opinion

In Re Means

California Supreme Court

Decided August 24, 1939No. Crim. 4228PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

By a writ of habeas corpus, E. H. Means seeks his discharge from custody under a warrant of arrest issued upon a complaint charging him with a violation of an ordinance of the city of Sacramento requiring that every person performing labor as a journeyman plumber procure a certificate of registration. The petitioner alleges in support of his application that at the time of his arrest he was a civil service employee of the State of California engaged in the work of a plumber at the California State Pair grounds in the city of Sacramento, and that, as such employee, the ordinance does not apply…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Atkin v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Johnson v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Heim v. McCallSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  4. Civic Center Ass'n of Los Angeles v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Balthasar v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1921

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Hall v. City of TaftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. In Re PorterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Horwith v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. County of Los Angeles v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Board of Trustees v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API