Axness v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
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
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- In Re TahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- 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.