|
Some have already been cited - - - but have you memorized them yet?
Ex Parte Dillion (1919) 44 Cal. App. 239
Murphy v. Murray (1925) 74 Cal. App. 726
Ex Parte Arata (1921) 52 Cal. App. 380
In re Tyler (1884) 64 Cal. App. 434
U.S. v Maid S.D. Cal. 1902, 116 F. 650
People v. Allison (1932) 126 Cal. App. 788
*
Some CITES from Larry Becraft that would also be helpful to have the FULL OPINION on.
*
Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Ward, 102 Fla. 1105, 137 So. 163, 167 (Fla.1931)
("The right of a citizen to use the highways, including the streets of
the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent
right which cannot be taken from him, but it is subject to reasonable
regulation in the interest of the public good")
*
Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 25 (1929)
("Even the Legislature
has no power to deny a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and
transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure,
though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest
and convenience")
*
Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kan. 671, 23 P. 1075, 1076 (1890)
("This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city
is so well established and so universally recognized in this country that it
has* become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen")
Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, 12 So.2d 784, 787 (Miss.1943)
("The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business
is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to
acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety.... The
rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights, and while
the exercise thereof may be reasonably regulated by legislative act in
pursuance of the police power of the State, and although those powers are
broad, they do not rise above those privileges which are imbedded in the
constitutional structure")
*
State v. Johnson, 75 Mon. 240, 243 P. 1073, 1078 (1926)
("[W]hile a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use
of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for
private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right in the use
of the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the
Legislature may grant or withhold in its discretion")
*
Cummins v. Jones, 79 Or. 276, 155 P. 171, 172 (1916); Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 139 A.2d
869, 872 (1958); Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 583 1930)
("The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business
is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to
acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety... It is
not a mere privilege...")
*
Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 P. 516, 518 (1917)
("They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary
right of a citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the
streets as a place of business or main instrumentality of a business for
private gain. The former is a common right, the latter an extraordinary
use")
*
Ex parte ****ey, 76 W.Va. 576, 85 S.E. 781, 782 (1915)
("The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon,
in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously
from that of the one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it
for private gain... The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen,
a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual,
and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that
of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader").
|
Brief On Traveling
