Legal Opinion

In Re Lawrence

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 10, 1942No. Crim. 3631PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GOULD, J. pro tem.

Petitioner, arrested upon a complaint charging a misdemeanor in violation of a Long Beach municipal ordinance making it unlawful to maintain or have in possession a “pin game” or “marble game,” initiated this proceeding asking this court by writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause and legality of his detention. His liberty is sought upon six separate grounds: (1) that the complaint upon which he was arrested does not state a public offense; (2) that the terms “pin game,” “marble game” and other like expressions in the ordinance under which he is charged are not…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. State v. Mountain Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Odd Fellows' Cemetery Ass'n v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. In re SicCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Morton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. People v. BradfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Francis v. County of StanislausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. City of Los Angeles v. SilverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. Sharpe v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

1 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