Korber v. City of Portland

2 Citing cases

  1. Hagerman v. City of St. Louis

    365 Mo. 403 (Mo. 1955)   Cited 9 times

    The justification for suppressing or prohibiting a business or occupation should be found in its inherent nature. See People ex rel. Moskowitz v. Jenkins, 202 N.Y. 53, 58, 94 N.E. 1065, 1067, 35 L.R.A. (NS) 1079, 1083; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 594, 37 S.Ct. 662, 61 L.Ed. 1336, L.R.A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Korber v. Portland, 135 Or. 233, 295 P. 203, 204; Kusnetzky v. Security Ins. Co., 313 Mo. 143, 157 (III), 281 S.W. 47, 51[5]. The Biddles, Holsman, Mogul, Levy and other cases, supra, cited by the city proceed on the theory that auction sales are proper subjects to be suppressed or prohibited.

  2. Ex Parte Strauch

    80 Okla. Crim. 89 (Okla. Crim. App. 1945)   Cited 17 times

    For the reasons above stated, we assume original jurisdiction to pass upon the question here involved. The petitioner cites the following cases: Sparger v. Harris, 191 Okla. 583, 131 P.2d 1011; 12 Am. Jur. 129, 147, 149, 186; 11 Am. Jur. 1046; Ragio v. State, 86 Tenn. 272, 6 S.W. 401; City of Tucson v. Stewart, 45 Ariz. 36, 40 P.2d 72, 96 A. L. R. 1492; City of Chicago v. Netcher, 183 Ill. 104, 55 N.E. 707, 48 L. R. A. 261; Toliver v. Blizzard, 143 Ky. 773, 137 S.W. 509, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 890; In re Farb, 178 Cal. 592, 174 P. 320, 3 A. L. R. 301; United States v. Armstrong, D.C., 265 F. 683; State v. McKune, 215 Wis. 592, 255 N.W. 916; Korber v. City of Portland, 135 Or. 233, 295 P. 203; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 37 S.Ct. 662, 61 L.Ed. 1336, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Shaw v. Fox, 246 Ky. 342, 55 S.W.2d 11; State v. Johnsey, 46 Okla. Cr. 233, 287 P. 729; Grantham v. City of Chickasha, 156 Okla. 56, 9 P.2d 747; State v. Childs, 32 Ariz. 222, 223, 257 P. 366, 54 A. L. R. 736. Counsel for respondent presents the following authorities: Harris v. State, 74 Okla. Cr. 13, 122 P.2d 401; State ex rel. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Henneford, 3 Wn.2d 48, 99 P.2d 616; Ex parte Herrera (Cal.App.) 137 P.2d 82; Ballentine v. Nester, 350 Mo. 58, 164 S.W.2d 378; Savage v. Martin, 161 Or. 660, 91 P.2d 273; United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corporation v. Delaware Liquor Comm., 2 Terry 74. 41 Del. 74, 15 A.2d 442; Weinberg v. Kluchesky, 236 Wis. 99, 294 N.W. 530; State ex rel. Saperstein v. Bass, 177 Tenn. 609, 152 S.W.2d 236; People v. Lewis, 319 Ill. 154, 149 N.E. 817; Manos v. City of Seattle, 146 Wn. 210, 262 P. 965; City of Spokane v. Coon, 3 Wn.2d 243, 100 P.2d 36; Th