Legal Opinion
In Re Siegel
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 10, 1975No. Crim. 13885PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THE COURT.
Petitioners, attorneys representing a defendant in a criminal case, seek a writ of habeas corpus, contending that they have been illegally imprisoned for nonpayment of fines imposed upon them for contempt of court during the course of the trial. Upon review of the petition, the points and authorities in opposition filed by the Attorney General, and the record, which includes the order of contempt, the minute order remanding petitioners to jail, and transcripts of proceedings relating to the contempts, we have concluded that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy, that an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Williams v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Tate v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Mayberry v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- In Re AntazoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. RomeroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- In Re NolandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978