In Re Application of Reineger
California Supreme Court
PROCEEDINGS on Habeas Corpus to secure release from custody on a charge of violating the Imitation Milk Act. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Thomas, Beedy & Lanagan, Theodore A. Bell, Raymond Benjamin, Thomas E. Lannen and William Thomas for Petitioner. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, Robert W. Harrison, Chief Deputy Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The petitioner, being imprisoned on the charge of violating the act of 1919 (Stats. 1919, p. 89), regulating the sale of substances designated therein as “imitation milk,” seeks his discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus. He was arrested upon a warrant issued upon a complaint filed in the police court of San Francisco.
The complaint alleges that “the crime of misdemeanor, to wit, selling and offering for sale imitation milk, without first obtaining a license therefor, was committed by E’. B. Reineger, who did then and there willfully and unlawfully engage in the business of selling, dealing in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hebe Co. v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Matter of Application of MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Ex parte KearnyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Ex parte McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Ex Parte GreenallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Freedland v. GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Barber v. GallowayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- California Coastal Commission v. Quanta Investment Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1980
- People v. Hacker Emporium, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1971
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.