Legal Opinion

In the Matter of the Application of Teatsen

California Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1920No. Crim. No. 2282Published

1Opinion of the Court

The application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case is based on the same facts as are set forth in the Case ofHinkelman, ante, p. 392, [191 P. 682], decided concurrently herewith, except that Teatsen is charged with driving an empty motor truck of one-ton capacity, instead of an ordinary automobile, and equipped with a Dillon lens instead of a Warner lens. Said Dillon lens is also of the diffusive type referred to in section 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act, [Stats. 1919, p. 206]. The law on the subject of such vehicles and lenses is the same as applicable to automobiles carrying Warner…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re HinkelmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API