Legal Opinion

Harlow v. Clow

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1924PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The writ of habeas corpus does not take the place of an appeal. It is a civil proceeding providing a remedy for one who is wrongfully deprived of his liberty.

Upon a conviction for vagrancy, the Municipal Court of the City of Klamath Falls is empowered to impose a sentence of not more than 50 days, or a fine of not to exceed $100, or both such fine and imprisonment. The Municipal Court did pronounce judgment upon the petitioner, imposing upon him a penalty of 25 days in jail and a fine of $100. Before the petitioner had served his jail sentence of 25 days, lawfully passed, he instituted this…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United States v. LanzaSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Wong v. City of AstoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1886
  3. State v. AyersOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  4. State v. BergmanOregon Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Ex parte FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. City of Portland v. DollarhideOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Landreth v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1958
  3. City of Portland v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. ANDERSON Ex Rel POE v. GLADDENOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  5. State v. FrancisOregon Supreme Court · 1928

21 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