Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Axness v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 30, 1988No. A040921Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ANDERSON, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in my colleagues’ opinion insofar as it recognizes appellant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of the Minnesota conviction by mandamus against the department in a California court. I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which holds the Minnesota conviction invalid and reverses the trial court’s denial of the petition. I quite agree with the majority that a driver who leaves California does not leave behind his federal constitutional rights, and I further agree that in testing the constitutionality of out-of-state…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. In Re TahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Frankie Joe Todd v. A. L. Lockhart, Superintendent, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of CorrectionCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1974

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

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

Powered by the Exa API