Legal Opinion

In Re Feiock

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 1989No. G003512PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Engle v. IsaacSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Moss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  2. People v. FontenotCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  3. In Re IveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. Gates v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. County of Santa Clara v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992

4 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