Guidoni v. Wheeler
Citations
- 5 Alaska 229
Syllabus
<p>1. Statutes <&wkey;167(l)—Repeals by Revision.</p> <p>The doctrine that a statute is impliedly repealed by a subsequent statute revising the whole matter of the first does not apply where the revisory statute declares what effect it is intended to have upon the former, as where it provides that it shall repeal all inconsistent or repugnant acts. In such cases only such effect can be given to the revisory acts as it directs. The enumerated acts are repealed; the others remain in force.</p> <p>2. Municipal Corporations <&wkey;625—Courts—Police Powers.</p> <p>The defendant was convicted before the police court of Juneau as a vagrant and sentenced to serve a period in the town jail. On habeas corpus to the district court to test the legality of. the conviction and confinement, held, the police court of Juneau is a lawful institution. The town has power to pass bylaws and ordinances within the limitations of its powers; but these limitations must be impartial, reasonable, and not oppressive.</p> <p>3. Habeas Corpus &wkey;>4, 32—Appeal and Error.</p> <p>If a town ordinance or by-law is void, no conviction can be sustained under it, and an application in habeas corpus would be the proper method to be pursued by one suffering restraint by reason of a judgment of which it is the basis. If the ordinance is not void, and the person is in restraint because of a defective complaint or insufficient evidence, habeas corpus will not lie, the party’s remedy being by appeal or writ of review; for habeas corpus cannot be made to take the place of those remedies.</p> <p>4. Municipal Corporations &wkey;>120—Construction of Ordinances.</p> <p>Ordinarily the rigid rules by which the validity of penal statutes are to be tested are not applicable to the by-laws of municipal corporations. The by-laws of very few of these corporations could stand such test. They should receive a reasonable construction, and tbeir terms should not be strictly scrutinized, for the purpose of making them void
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘Vhile claims may be supported by some common operative facts, [s]ection 1500 is not implicated where the material facts supporting each claim are characterized as largely dissimilar”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Jennings
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.