Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Boehme

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 13, 1936No. Crim. 1871PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.—The

petitioner was convicted of violating section 23 of the Barber Shop Law as amended by adding thereto subdivision (j) (chap. 526, Stats. 1935), making it unlawful for any person to "operate or keep open any barber shop or college for more than six days in any one calendar week”, and sentenced to imprisonment in the city prison of Oakland in the county of Alameda. Claiming that said imprisonment is unlawful he sought his freedom by writ of habeas corpus in the superior court of that county, and after a hearing upon the writ he was remanded to custodyi He now makes application to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Matter of Application of MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Ex parte JentzschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. In Re SumidaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State Board of Barber Examiners v. CloudIndiana Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Doyle v. Board of Barber ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. In Re KazasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. People v. OsborneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Deese v. City of LodiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API