In re Daly

California Supreme Court

In re Daly

139 Cal. 216

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1903

DocketCrim. No. 930

StatusPublished

This text of 139 Cal. 216 (In re Daly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Daly, 139 Cal. 216 (Cal. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The only ground upon which the applicant could be discharged on this proceeding is the alleged invalidity of certain ordinances of the city of Los Angeles. But in the recently decided ease of Dobbins v. City of Los Angeles, ante, p. 179, the validity of these ordinances was directly involved, and it was there held that the same are valid; and on the authority of that case the prayer of the petitioner is denied.

The petitioner is remanded and the writ is discharged.

Rehearing denied.

Beatty, C. J., Lorigan, J., and Henshaw, J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing, and Van Dyke, J., took no action thereon.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

The only ground upon which the applicant could be discharged on this proceeding is the alleged invalidity of certain ordinances of the city of Los Angeles. But in the recently decided ease of Dobbins v. City of Los Angeles, ante, p. 179, the validity of these ordinances was directly involved, and it was there held that the same are valid; and on the authority of that case the prayer of the petitioner is denied.

The petitioner is remanded and the writ is discharged.

Rehearing denied.

Beatty, C. J., Lorigan, J., and Henshaw, J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing, and Van Dyke, J., took no action thereon.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 Cal. 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daly-cal-1903.