Legal Opinion

In Re Zuker

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 24, 1936No. Crim. 2811; Crim. 2814PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, P. J.

Habeas corpus.

In this matter, it appears that in a proceeding supplementary to the execution of a judgment, on a hearing thereof before a referee appointed by the superior court, both Han nah Zuker and James M. Zuker were sworn and testified; that in so doing, each of such witnesses testified to certain facts, as to which several other witnesses in effect testified to the contrary; also, that as to petitioner James M. Zuker, after having been orally ordered by the referee to produce certain books and records, he failed to do so; that thereupon, in pursuance of an affidavit made in the nature…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re BattelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re WellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Bennett v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API