Legal Opinion
In Re Porterfield
California Supreme Court
Decided April 30, 1946No. Crim. 4555PublishedCited by 139 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.
Petitioner James Porterfield, a labor organizer, stands convicted of violating Ordinance No. 251 of the city of Redding (now incorporated in the Redding Municipal Code). Such ordinance prohibits soliciting for compensation, without a license, of memberships in organizations requiring the payment of dues. This petition for habeas corpus is urged upon the grounds that the ordinance contravenes the state and federal Constitutions in numerous respects, and that it conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act and with statutes of the State of California and is therefore null and void. We…
2Cases cited77 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington)Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Stromberg v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by139 opinions
- In Re DixonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Fort v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the BlindCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
134 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.