Legal Opinion

Ex parte Noble

California Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1892No. 20931PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

— The petitioner was convicted in a justice’s court of a misdemeanor in' maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, in violation of an ordinance of Sutter County, and sentenced to pay a fine of twenty-five dollars, and to be imprisoned until it was paid at the rate of two dollars a day. An appeal was taken by petitioner to the superior court of said Sutter County, and the judgment was affirmed.

The point, elaborately argued by counsel for petitioner, that the ordinance in question is “ in conflict with general laws,” and therefore void, was decided by this court adversely to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ex parte KearnyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Ex parte SternesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. In re Grove StreetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Ex parte CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Ex parte SotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re KennerlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. In Re LeonardinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  3. In Re WyattCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. In Re CoonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. In Re MartinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

1 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