Rescue Army v. Municipal Court

Facts

Murdock was charged in the Municipal Court with violating three sections of the Municipal Code. They prohibit solicitations in the specified public places or adjacent areas 'by means of any box or receptacle' except, under express written permission. The issue of the Municipal Court's jurisdiction, therefore, turns upon the validity of the ordinances (44.09(a), 44.09(b) and 44.12), together with the other provisions necessarily incorporated in them by reference. This suit was one for a writ of prohibition. The appeal is from the California Supreme Court's judgment denying appellants' application for such a writ. The writ was to test the jurisdiction of the respondent Municipal Court of Los Angeles to proceed with a pending criminal prosecution against Murdock, who is an officer of the Rescue Army. In that court, he had been charged with violating three provisions of the city ordinances, had been twice convicted, and twice the convictions had been reversed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. While the case was pending in the Municipal Court after the second reversal, appellants filed their petition in this cause in the District Court of Appeal. Alleging that the Municipal Court was threatening to proceed with a third trial on the same charges, they set forth grounds held sufficient under the state procedure to present for adjudication the question of the Municipal Court's jurisdiction. The District Court of Appeal denied the writ. Thereupon the state Supreme Court transferred the cause to its own docket and issued an alternative writ of prohibition pending determination there. The Supreme Court decided the issues on the merits against the appellants. It, therefore, denied the writ, at the same time discharging the alternative writ. The ordinances were sustained as against the constitutional and other objections raised concerning them.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.