Legal Opinion

Ex parte Henshaw

California Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1887No. 20210PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

McKinstry, 3.

— The attorney general, upon the relation of one Daniels, commenced an action against the petitioner herein, in which action judgment was entered by the Superior Court for Alameda that the petitioner had usurped and intruded into and was unlawfully exercising the office of police judge of the city of Oakland, and that the relator therein was entitled to the office. From that judgment the defendant therein appealed, but the appeal did not stay its’execution. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 949.)

Upon proceedings taken in the said Superior Court, the defendant in that action, petitioner…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Field v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
  2. Ex parte CrittendenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Ex parte EllisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. District Court of Eighth Jud. Dist.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1925
  2. In re FantonNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
  3. State Ex Rel. Dunn v. PleseWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
  5. Bowers v. Kansas City Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931

16 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