Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Hayes

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 25, 1933No. Docket No. 253PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

Upon application of the petitioner a writ of habeas corpus was issued by the Supreme Court and made returnable before this court.

It appears that petitioner was arrested and is being detained under a warrant based upon a complaint filed in the Justice Court of Riverside Township, County of Riverside, in which he is charged in four separate counts with violations of section 11 of The California Fruit, Nut and Vegetable Standardization Act of 1931 (Stats. 1931, p. 1459). In two counts he is charged with mislabeling certain grapefruit by marking the wrappers thereof with the word “Coachella” and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. KirbySupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Ex Parte HaydenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Parrott & Co. v. BensonWashington Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Ex Parte LorenzenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. People v. EarlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Paraco, Inc. v. Department of AgricultureCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Paul v. EggmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API