Legal Opinion

Ex parte Haymond

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1891No. 20885PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Application to the Supreme Court for a discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The Court.

The petitioner was subpoenaed as a witness before the grand jury of San Francisco. He refused to appear and testify, upon the ground that, in his opinion, the grand jury was not a lawful body. For this refusal he was convicted of a contempt of the superior court, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. Thereupon he sued out this writ, under which he prays to be discharged from custody.

It is not controverted that he must be remanded and the writ discharged, unless he can show that the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction in the contempt proceeding.

In order to do this, petitioner…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bruner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. State ex rel. Dunn v. NoyesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Flynn v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1958
  4. People v. ReigelMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  5. State ex rel. Hahn v. WestportSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896

2 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