Ex Parte Daniels
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure release on a charge of driving an automobile in violation of city ordinances. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. David R. Faries, Ivan Kelso, John W. Stetson, Martin F. Forrest and Earle M. Daniels for Petitioner. Charles S. Burnell, City Attorney, Jess E. Stephens, Assistant City Attorney, James G. Leovy, Deputy City Attorney, and James H. Howard for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.
Petitioner was charged with the offense of driving an automobile within the limits of the city of Pasadena on the 28th of April, 1919, in violation of a municipal ordinance of the city of Pasadena prohibiting a greater rate of speed than fifteen miles an hour at the place in question. It is stipulated that the Motor Vehicle Act of 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 382), then in force, permitted the driving of a motor vehicle at a speed not exceeding twenty miles an hour at that place, and that the petitioner was not exceeding that limit. The Motor Vehicle Act of 1917 not only fixed the maximum rate of…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- People ex rel. Le Roy v. HurlbutMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- People ex rel. Board of Park Commissioners v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Ham v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- In Re HoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by193 opinions
- People v. GroganNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Bishop v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Lorenson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
188 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.