Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Riley

California Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1904No. Crim. No. 1142PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of violating a county ordinance and sentenced to pay a fine of thirty dollars, or to serve fifteen days in the county jail. He contends that the judgment is void because it does not admit of satisfaction by payment of so much of the fine as is not satisfied by imprisonment at the rate of two dollars a day. It does not, in terms, provide that it may be so satisfied, but we think that is its effect. Whenever it is made to appear that petitioner has paid so much of his fine as remains unsatisfied by imprisonment at two dollars a day…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Matter of Application of RobbinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  3. In Re GlavichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. People v. MagoniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. In Re Application of MurphyOregon Supreme Court · 1926

2 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