Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Murphy

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 30, 1926No. Docket No. 943PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This matter is before the court upon application for a writ of habeas corpus after judgment of conviction, and only one point is presented for our consideration. The petition alleges that on Saturday afternoon, December 18, 1920, a portion of the testimony of one Fred A. Smith and the whole of the testimony of one Henry Heidelberg was taken as a part of the trial of the defendant. It appears that on said day when the hour of noon arrived the court mentioned such fact and petitioner’s counsel stated: “We make no objection to finishing with this witness.” At that particular time the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Doyle v. . AtwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Ex parte TiceOregon Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Matter of SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Ex parte LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. People v. MaljanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In Re ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. In Re CarmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  3. In Re BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. In Re BladesIdaho Supreme Court · 1939
  5. People v. BrowningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

5 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