Legal Opinion

In Re McKenna

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 21, 1931No. Docket No. 2084PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYork, J.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus based principally upon the ground that the trial court was without jurisdiction to punish petitioner for contempt. The commitment was issued after the „ court had made two orders, one of which found the petitioner guilty of contempt of court for failure to pay alimony, and sentenced the petitioner to two days in the county jail, which order was afterward modified by the second order, and was made on- application of petitioner, permitting him to pay $5 per month until he should have paid the sum of $60 ordered to be paid by him by an order…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re McCartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Lampson v. LampsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. Marin Water & Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. N. Coast Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Yore v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Remondino v. RemondinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  2. Morrow v. MorrowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  3. McLaughlin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Johnson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Bennett v. BennettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933

9 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