Legal Opinion
In Re Lane
California Supreme Court
Decided June 28, 1962No. Crim. 6929PublishedCited by 148 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.
Burton Marks petitions for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of. his client, Carol Lane (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”), claiming that she is being illegally *102restrained of her liberty by the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles.
Facts-. Defendant was convicted of the crime of “resorting, ’ ’ after a court trial in the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District on two charges of violating section 41.07 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, which provides: “No person shall resort to any office building or to any room used or occupied in connection with, or under the same…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- James v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Hall v. City of TaftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Asher v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Malloy v. FongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by148 opinions
- In Re CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- In Re GianniniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- In Re HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- State v. DukesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Cohen v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
143 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.