Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Lane

California Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1962No. Crim. 6929Published

1Opinion of the Court

58 Cal.2d 99 (1962)

In re CAROL LANE on Habeas Corpus.

Crim. No. 6929.

Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

June 28, 1962.

Burton Marks for Petitioner.

A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Hillel Chodos and Sheldon G. Bardach as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Roger Arnebergh, City Attorney (Los Angeles), Philip E. Grey, Assistant City Attorney, Wm. E. Doran and George J. Franscell, Deputy City Attorneys, for Respondent.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, Arlo E. Smith, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel (Los Angeles), Robert C.…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. James v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Hall v. City of TaftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  4. In Re LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Asher v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1888

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API