American Case Law – Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago

Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 169 NE 22   U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the 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 the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to Continue Reading →

American Case Law – Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Yick Wo v. Hopkins – 118 U.S. 356 (1886)   Syllabus Case U.S. Supreme Court Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) Yick Wo v. Hopkins Submitted April 14, 1886 Decided May 10, 1886 118 U.S. 356   APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus In a suit brought to this court from a State court which involves the constitutionality of ordinances made by a municipal corporation in the State, this court will, when necessary, put its own independent construction upon the ordinances. A municipal ordinance to regulate the carrying on of public laundries within the limits of the municipality violates the provisions of the Constitution of the United States if it confers upon the municipal authorities arbitrary power, at their own will, and without regard to discretion in the legal sense of the term, to give or withhold consent as to persons or places, without regard to the competency of the persons applying, or the propriety of the place selected, for the carrying on of the business. An administration of a municipal ordinance for the carrying on of a lawful business within the corporate limits violates the provisions of the Continue Reading →

Canadian Case Law – R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 SCR 295   Her Majesty The Queen     Appellant;   and   Big M Drug Mart Ltd.     Respondent;   and   The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of New Brunswick and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan   Interveners.   File No.: 18125.   1984: March 6, 7; 1985: April 24.   Present: Ritchie*, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson JJ.   *Ritchie J. took no part in the judgment.   on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta                     Constitutional law ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑‑ Freedom of conscience and religion ‑‑ Lord’s Day Act and Sunday observance ‑‑ Whether or not Lord’s Day Act in violation of Charter guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion ‑‑ Whether or not Act a reasonable limit demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society ‑‑ Whether or not Act enacted pursuant to criminal law power ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1,2(a), 24(1), 27, 32(1) ‑‑ Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91, 92, 93 ‑‑ Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52(1) ‑‑ Lord’s Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L‑13, s. 4.     The respondent, Big M Drug Mart Ltd., was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods Continue Reading →

Canadian Case Law – R. v. Dell

R. v. Dell, 2005 ABCA 246 (CanLII)   In the Court of Appeal of Alberta   Citation: R. v. Dell, 2005 ABCA 246   Date: 20050715 Docket: 0401-0241-A Registry: Calgary     Between:   Her Majesty the Queen   Respondent   – and –   Bryan Matthew Dell   Appellant       _______________________________________________________   The Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jean Côté The Honourable Madam Justice Constance Hunt The Honourable Madam Justice Adelle Fruman _______________________________________________________     Reasons for Judgment Reserved of The Honourable Madam Justice Fruman Concurred in by The Honourable Madam Justice Hunt Concurring Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Côté Appeal from the Conviction by The Honourable Mr. Justice Clark Dated the 19th day of March, 2004 (Docket: 020556924Q1)   _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment Reserved of The Honourable Madam Justice Fruman _______________________________________________________   [1]               Bryan Matthew Dell appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. The cocaine was found when he was briefly detained and searched by bar staff in a private bar. Dell claims the actions breached s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the right not to be arbitrarily detained) and, as a consequence, the cocaine should be excluded from his criminal trial. The central issue in Continue Reading →