Legal Opinion
In Re Bauman
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 12, 1947No. Crim. 2507PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.
Petitioner by this proceeding in habeas corpus seeks to secure the custody of his daughter, aged 8, the child now being in the custody of his divorced wife, who has remarried, and is now residing in Contra Costa County. It is quite clear, and no contention is made to the contrary, that habeas corpus is a proper means of determining rights of custody to minor children. (See cases collected 13 CaLJur. p. 251, § 29.)
From the petition, the return, and the documents filed by stipulation, the following facts appear: Albert and Pauline Bauman were finally divorced in Oklahoma in 1944. By that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Foster v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Titcomb v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1934
- In Re WenmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- In Re KyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- In Re LivingstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Ferreira v. FerreiraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Forslund v. ForslundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Leathers v. LeathersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Bourland v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Crabtree v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.