State v. Fife
State v. Fife, 111 So. 62 (La. 1926).
Cited by
- Fontenot v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 304 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
- Brown v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. 14 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
- Williams v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 11 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
- Shipp v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. in Trusteeship 188 So. 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
- Miller v. Baldwin 178 So. 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Pinckley v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 165 So. 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Dowling v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. 154 So. 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
- Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co. 147 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Johnson v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. 133 So. 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- Franklin v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. 120 So. 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
Opinion text
OVERTON, J. Relators herein, who are the defendants in the case of Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Joseph B. Fife and Walter W. Fife, 111 So. 58 , 1 No. 26S44, this day decided, were ruled into the-civil district court for the parish of Orleans, for contempt of court, for violating the writ of injunction which issued in that case, and were found guilty and sentenced to jail. For the purpose of obtaining their freedom, they applied to us for a writ of habeas corpus. Their application is based upon the alleged unconstitutionality of Act 56 of 1914, as amended by Act 54 of 1918, their contention being that, since the act, as amended, is unconstitutional, the writ of injunction that issued to enforce it is null, and, since the injunction is null, and was issued without authority, it was not a contempt to violate it. The grounds of unconstitutionality set, forth in their application are identical with those considered in the case of the Louisiana state board of medical examiners against them.. Since we have decided those grounds adversely to them in the case cited, holding that the act, as amended, is constitutional, relators are not entitled to relief under the writ of habeas corpus that issued herein. For the reasons assigned, relators’ demand is rejected, and the writ is discharged. 1 Ante, p. 681.