Legal Opinion

In Re Nicholls

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 2, 1925No. Docket No. 1290PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCashin, J.

Petitioner was convicted in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco of a misdemeanor, as a punishment was sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of such payment to be imprisoned. Having been committed pursuant to the judgment he has applied for a writ of habeas corpus.

The complaint in the action, which was prosecuted in the name of the People of the State of California, charged a violation of an ordinance of the city and county known as the “Plumbing Law,” making it a misdemeanor for any person to install or to alter the plumbing in any new or old building or in any premises…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. In Re SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Ex parte FiskeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. In Re Application of GutierrezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  5. Robert v. Police Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1905

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  2. Cook v. MasonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. Leischner v. KnightMontana Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Oppenheimer v. Clifton's Brookdale, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1950
  5. Fallen Leaf Protection Assn. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API