Legal Opinion

In Re Portnoy

California Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1942No. Crim. 4429PublishedCited by 72 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

— Petitioners were convicted in the Justice’s Court of Riverside County under two counts of a complaint charging them with violating the provisions of Ordinance No. 248 of that county. The judgments of conviction were affirmed on appeal by the superior court. A writ of certiorari, which was sought to annul the judgments, of conviction, was denied by this court upon the ground that no excess of jurisdiction was present. (Portnoy v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 375 [125 P.2d 487].) This proceeding in habeas corpus is based upon the contention that the sections of the ordinance under which…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. In Re HoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Mann v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by72 opinions

  1. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. In Re LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  3. In Re HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Cohen v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Danskin v. San Diego Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946

67 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