California Supreme Court· 11/17/1942
In Re Portnoy
Citations
- 21 Cal. 2d 237
- 131 P.2d 1
- 1942 Cal. LEXIS 445
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding contradiction where local legislation established a lower maximum speed limit for motor vehicles as compared to the higher speed limit fixed by state law
- “Insofar as the [ordinance purports] to prohibit acts which are already made criminal by the Penal Code, it is clear that they exceed the proper limits of supplementary regulation and must be invalid because in conflict with the statutes which they duplicate.”
- “Insofar as the [ordinance purports] to prohibit acts which are already made criminal by the Penal Code, it is clear that they exceed the proper limits of supplementary regulation and must be invalid because in conflict with the statutes which they duplicate.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gibson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court· 1981-03-12· cited 186×
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1993-02-04· cited 171×
- In Re LaneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1962-06-28· cited 157×
- Cohen v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1985-10-31· cited 157×
- In Re HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court· 1964-11-30· cited 141×
- Danskin v. San Diego Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court· 1946-06-26· cited 124×
- People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. County of MendocinoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1984-07-26· cited 108×
- Chavez v. SargentCalifornia Supreme Court· 1959-05-19· cited 107×
- Lancaster v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1972-03-21· cited 83×
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1982-08-30· cited 76×
- O'CONNELL v. City of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court· 2007-07-26· cited 64×
- People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1986-05-21· cited 63×
- Simpson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1953-02-20· cited 61×
- Curtis v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1972-09-19· cited 59×
- First Resort, Inc. v. Dennis HerreraNinth Circuit· 2017-06-27· cited 46×
- Gerken v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court· 1993-12-20· cited 42×
- Ewap, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1979-09-25· cited 39×
- In re AllenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1962-12-19· cited 33×
- Williams v. Justice CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1964-10-08· cited 31×
- People v. EvansCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1967-03-07· cited 30×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-02-13· cited 207×
- Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-05-01· cited 175×
- In re SicCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-07-14· cited 66×
- In Re MingoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1923-04-11· cited 39×
- Portnoy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-05-01· cited 26×
- Chapman v. AggelerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1941-11-22· cited 20×
- People v. KayCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1940-01-18· cited 11×
- Robison v. PayneCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1937-04-01· cited 7×
Other cases named In Re Portnoy
4 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced 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.