In Re Martinez

Good Law
1943 Cal. LEXIS 182·22 Cal. 2d 259·138 P.2d 10
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 24, 1943Crim. 4482California1,195 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gibson, J.

Petitioner was convicted in the Police Court of the City of Sacramento of violating a municipal ordinance regulating and fixing the rates of taxicabs. On appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the superior court. Petitioner now seeks his discharge on habeas corpus contending that the ordinance is unconstitutional upon the ground exclusive power to fix such rates is vested in the Railroad Commission.- Petitioner does not claim that the ordinance is unreasonable or discriminatory but contends that the city is without power to enact any ordinance fixing taxicab rates.

Petitioner relies on section 23 of article XII of the Constitution, which reads in part as follows:

He argues that inasmuch as this constitutional provision defines a public utility as including every common carrier, which under section 2168 of the Civil Code embraces taxicabs as carriers of persons, the rates of taxicabs are therefore subject to regulation by the Railroad Commission alone. This contention entirely disregards that portion of the quoted constitutional provision which declares that the public utilities therein defined (including common carriers) shall be “subject to such control and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.