Hill v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.
Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel the respondent court to allow “additional compensation to petitioners for services and expenses” while acting as the court-appointed counsel for Ezra Linwood Witham. The petition was originally filed in the District Court of Appeal, which court issued an alternative writ, and ordered a reference to ascertain the facts.
There is no dispute here concerning the essential facts. Petitioners Hill and Cissna were appointed by the respondent court to defend Witham, who was charged with murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and kidnapping.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rowe v. Yuba CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Lamont v. Solano Cty.California Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by23 opinions
- In Re SmileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- State v. HortonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- People v. KerfootCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Lindh v. O'HARASupreme Court of Delaware · 1974
- Luke v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.