Legal Opinion
In Re Gritton
California Supreme Court
Decided July 31, 1956No. Crim. 5912PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
In this habeas corpus proceeding the petitioners, Lynn Gritton and Haree R. Bainbridge, seek their release from the custody of the sheriff of Riverside County. Together with one Watkins they were charged with violating Ordinance Number 393 of that county. They were convicted on a second trial by jury in the Municipal Court of the Riverside Judicial District. Each of the petitioners was granted probation on the condition that he pay a fine of $500 and serve six months in the county jail, all but 30 days of which was suspended. The judgments of conviction were affirmed without opinion by the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Country of Plumas v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Ex Parte PfirrmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- In Re McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Hill v. City of EurekaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Wheeler v. County of PlumasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Robins v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- California Building Industry Ass'n. v. Governing Board of Newhall School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Bainbridge v. County of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Cooper v. MichaelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967