In re Daly (1903) · DecisionDepot

In re Daly

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jun 3, 1903 No. Crim. No. 930Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petitioner's request for discharge because the ordinances in question were previously held to be valid in Dobbins v. City of Los Angeles.

Issues

Whether the ordinances of the city of Los Angeles are invalid.

Disposition. Writ discharged; petitioner remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

Synopsis

Municipal Ordinances—Police Power—Case Aeeirmed.—Municipal ordinances confining the erection and maintenance of gas-works within defined limits, and changing such limits, held valid ahd enforceable under the police power, on the authority of Dobbins v. City of Dos Angeles, ante, p. 179.

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.

In re Daly

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief