Legal Opinion

Ex parte Long

California Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 1896No. Crim. No 122PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Hearing in the Supreme Court upon writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.

Petitioner asks to be discharged on habeas corpus from restraint under a judgment convicting him of a misdemeanor in selling beer without a license, in violation of section 1 of' ordinance No. 1093 of the city of Oakland, regulating the traffic in intoxicating liquors within the limits of that city.

No question is made as to the jurisdiction of the court, or the sufficiency of the complaint in charging an offense under the ordinance; nor is the judgment in any way attacked as void for any reason or defect appearing upon its face. The contention of petitioner upon which he bases his right to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex parte SternesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Ex parte MaxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Ex parte BirdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Ex parte CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Ex parte LehmkuhlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. People v. DuvallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. In Re HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. In Re ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. In Re LindleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. In Re JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964

17 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