Ex Parte Heylman
28 P. 675, 92 Cal. 492, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1237
Opinion
Ordinances similar to that which petitioner was convicted of having violated have frequently-been considered by this court. The validity of such ordinances is not now an open question here.
We are unable to discover any legal ground upon which the petitioner could be discharged.
Petitioner remanded to the custody of the chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco.
Be Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., dissented.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ex Parte Heylman, 28 P. 675, 92 Cal. 492, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1237 (Cal. 1891).
28 P. 675 (Ex Parte Heylman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
California Apartment Ass'n v. City of Stockton
80 Cal. App. 4th 699 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
Eye Clinic, P.C. v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital
986 S.W.2d 565 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1998)
People v. Williams
207 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1962)
Joint Highway Dist. No. 13 v. Hinman
32 P.2d 144 (California Supreme Court, 1934)
E. A. Hoffman Candy Co. v. City of Newport Beach
8 P.2d 235 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Wittschen v. Commissioner
25 B.T.A. 46 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1931)
Orosi Public Utility District v. McCuaig
235 P. 1004 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
Ex parte Byles
126 S.W. 94 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
McKnight v. Hodge
104 P. 504 (Washington Supreme Court, 1909)
Servonitz v. State
113 N.W. 277 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
Ex parte Haskell
44 P. 725 (California Supreme Court, 1896)