In Re Hinkelman
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure release from custody for violation of Motor Vehicle Act. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Hinkelman was imprisoned on a warrant of arrest issued out of the police court of the city and county of San Francisco on a complaint charging him with violating sections 32 and 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act. (Stats. 1919, pp. 206, 225.) He applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the complaint does not charge a public offense and that sections 13 and 32 of said act, so far as they relate to the offense charged, are unconstitutional.
Section 32 declares it to be misdemeanor for any person to violate any provisions of the act. The particular violation here charged is the driving of an…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Matz v. J. L. Curtis Cartage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
- Davis v. CraneCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- In re TeatsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- In re TeatsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- In the Matter of the Application of TeatsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.