In Re Garner
California Supreme Court
PROCEEDING on Habeas Corpus originally instituted in the Supreme Court. Petitioner discharged from custody. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.
Petitioner, in that he was found guilty of unlawfully interfering with the process of the court, was adjudged guilty of contempt, and as punishment therefor he was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of ninety days. Upon payment of the fine and after five days’ imprisonment in the county jail, a writ of habeas corpus was issued, the return to which shows that petitioner was found guilty of acts similar to those involved in Ex parte Buckley, 69 Cal. 26, [10 Pac. 69]. That such acts constituted contempt must…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- In re the Estate of JessupCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- State ex inf. Crow v. ShepherdSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Smith v. WesterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Ex parte CreasySupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- State v. McCauleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- In Re LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Brydonjack v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Millholen v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Hustedt v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Michael G. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.