In Re Valterza
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. It rests on the following facts. After the judgment of the trial court was entered in Gould and Kane, Incorporated, v. Valterza et al., Civil No. 11122 the case this day filed (ante, p. 678 [100 Pac. (2d) 335], a showing was made to the trial court that the defendants had been guilty of contempt. A citation issued, a hearing was had, and Charles Valterza was found guilty. He applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ issued, a return was made, and the application was submitted with the ease above mentioned. The petitioner…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. WeigleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Leopold v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Smith v. PeopleColorado Court of Appeals · 1892
- Clark v. BurkeIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Newman v. BullockSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- In Re OxmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- In Re FortenburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- In Re FinnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- In Re FortenburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.