Legal Opinion

In re Teatsen

California Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1920No. Crim. No. 2282Published

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure release from custody for violation of Motor Vehicle Act. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion of the court In the Matter of the Application of Lee H. Hinkelman, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, ante, p. 392, [191 Pac. 682],

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case is based on the same facts as are set forth in the Case of Hinkelman, ante, p. 392, [191 Pac. 682], decided concurrently herewith, except that Teatsen is charged with driving an empty motor truck of one-ton capacity, instead of an ordinary automobile, and equipped with a Dillon lens instead of a Warner lens. Said Dillon lens is also of the diffusive type referred to in section 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act, [Stats. 1919, p. 206]. The law on the subject of such vehicles and lenses is the same as applicable to automobiles carrying Warner…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re HinkelmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API