Rescue Army v. Municipal Court
California Supreme Court
1Dissent
CARTER, J., Dissenting.
I agree that the instant case is a proper one for review by a writ of prohibition but I cannot agree with the reasoning followed by the opinion of Chief Justice Gibson in arriving at that result.
It is fundamental that a court, whether it is a trial or appellate court, has the jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. (In re Grove Street, 61 Cal. 438; Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195; In re Meisner, 30 Cal.App.2d 290 [86 P.2d 124]; In re Wyatt, 114 Cal.App. 557 [300 P. 132] ; Fitzpatrick v. Sonoma County, 97 Cal.App. 588 [276 P. 113] ; In…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Prince v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington)Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Lovell v. City of GriffinSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.