Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Joutsen

California Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1908No. Crim. No. 1469PublishedCited by 25 opinions

APPLICATION on Habeas Corpus to be discharged from an imprisonment on account of the petitioner’s refusal to comply with an order directing him to pay alimony. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.

The petitioner seeks his discharge from the custody of the sheriff of Alameda County, by whom he is held under a judgment of the superior court of that county, adjudging him guilty of a contempt of court in failing and refusing to pay to Selma Joutsen certain sums ordered paid by said court in a divorce action instituted by said Selma Joutsen against him, as alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, and costs, and directing that he be imprisoned in the county jail of said county “for the term of five days and until he comply with said order by paying plaintiff said sums.”

The divorce action was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hite v. HiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Ex parte ToddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Ex parte BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Baker v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Colbert v. ColbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Colvig v. RKO General, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1965
  3. Mead School District No. 354 v. Mead Education Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Anderson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
  5. In Re SelowskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

20 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