invalidating statute that exempted canneries from limits on crab harvesting after explaining that there must be "some reasonable ground of distinction sufficient to show that the classification is not merely personal and arbitrary"
How later courts described this case
- invalidating statute that exempted canneries from limits on crab harvesting after explaining that there must be "some reasonable ground of distinction sufficient to show that the classification is not merely personal and arbitrary"
- Article I, section 20, is “antithesis” of Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rehearing denied April 20, 1920.
Petition for Rehearing.
( 189 Pac. 427 .)
On petition for rehearing. Petition denied and former opinion approved. Rehearing Denied.
Mr. L. A. Liljequist, for the petition.
• . Mr. John F. Hall, District Attorney, and Mr. George M. Brown, contra.
Department 2.
PER CURIAM. — For the reasons given in the original opinion, as well as those set forth in State v. *66 Blanchard, post, p. -79 ( 189 Pac. 421 ), this day decided, we adhere to our former opinion, and the petition for rehearing is therefore denied.
Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.