at 5 (CR 172). 4 . Although the City contends that the manufacture and operation of amusement games are not occupations that warrant constitutional protection, it is well-recognized that the pursuit of an occupation or profession is a protected liberty interest that extends across a broad range of lawful occupations, see Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 492, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 1411, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959) (aeronautical engineer); Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 755-56, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) (law practice); Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473, 478 (9th Cir.1988) (bar ownership), and we assume without deciding that the operation of skill-based amusement games is within this range, cf. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 756-57 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, corporations, as legal persons,
holding that definition of seizure under state constitution differs from that under us constitution holding that selling tshirts from a vending cart is an occupation protected under the constitution recognizing exception under state constitution holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding there are three tests used to determine whether an employee was engaged in an activity that is part of the owners trade business or occupation