Legal Opinion

Ex parte Lehmkuhl

California Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1887No. 20261PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Foote, C.

The petitioner was tried before the Police Court of the city of Oakland for a misdemeanor, viz., the commission of a nuisance, in obstructing Broadway, a street of said city.

The judgment was, that he pay a fine of ($2) two dollars, or be imprisoned until said fine be duly satisfied, at the rate of one day’s imprisonment for each dollar of fine. The captain of the police of the city of Oakland has him in custody, by virtue of a writ of commitment issued from the Police Court of said city, under its judgment of conviction as aforesaid.

The only defense which the defendant set up (as he…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ex parte MaxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Ex parte BirdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  3. Ex parte CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In Re TalleyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
  2. Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. HoffmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Ex parte LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. German Mercantile Co. v. WannerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Schiller Piano Co. v. HydeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917

5 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