In Re Feiock
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WALLIN, J.
We originally granted the petition for a writ in this case. (In re Feiock (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 649 [225 Cal.Rptr. 748].) It returns to us by way of writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings. (Hicks v. Feiock (1988) 485 U.S. 624 [99 L.Ed.2d 721, 108 S.Ct. 1423].) Based upon new arguments, we deny the writ of habeas corpus.
I
The underlying facts remain the same. We reproduce them here with the necessary procedural update: “Phillip Feiock seeks relief from a judgment of contempt for failure to pay child…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Engle v. IsaacSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Moss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. FontenotCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- In Re IveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Gates v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.