Legal Opinion

In Re Wolff

California Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1920No. Crim. No. 2330PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[1] Habeas corpus does not lie after judgment of conviction of a crime for any cause except want of jurisdiction in the court which rendered the judgment.

The claim of petitioner is that there was a want of jurisdiction in the superior court of Kern County to render the judgment of conviction, because, after the justice of the peace had found the defendant to be under eighteen years of age and had certified the case to the superior court for proceedings in its capacity as juvenile court, and in pursuance of said court's directions a complaint had been filed by the probation officer against the…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Rubino v. Utah Canning Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. In Re McInturffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. In Re Application of TasseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. People v. BarberaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  5. People v. TosseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

3 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