Legal Opinion

In Re Gohlke

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 7, 1925No. Docket No. 1263PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.

Petitioner, by this proceeding in habeas corpus, seeks to be discharged from the custody of the sheriff of Fresno County, by whom he is detained under a commitment issued out of the police court of the city of Fresno, following the making of an order holding him to answer for trial before the superior court for “the offense of felony, to wit, driving automobile without owner’s consent.” The charge against petitioner is based upon section 146 of the Motor Vehicle Act of California (Stats. 1923, p. 564), which in part reads as follows: “Any person who shall drive a vehicle not his own without…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Carlock v. CagnacciCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. In Re IschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. In Re HallawellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. TrimbleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  2. Matter of GohlkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API