Legal Opinion
In Re McDonough
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 16, 1938No. Crim. 2026PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is charged with the crime of conspiring to violate chapter 8, division 1, part 2 of the Insurance Code. (Stats. 1937, chap. 653.) The petitioner claims that in every respect, so far as his alleged offense is concerned, said chapter 8 is unconstitutional and void.
For many years prior to 1937 many different persons, natural and artificial, had been engaged in providing, for compensation, bail bonds in criminal cases. The petitioner had been so engaged for a period of thirty years and had built up an established business at a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Ex Parte BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- McDonough v. GoodcellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Sawyer v. BarbourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- De Weese v. JC PENNY COMPANYUtah Supreme Court · 1956
- McDonough v. GarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Stewart v. County of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.