Legal Opinion

Ex parte Rosenheim

California Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1890No. 20635PublishedCited by 69 opinions

Application to the Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.

— The petitioners are before us on a writ of habeas corpus. They ivere convicted in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco, December 10, 1888, of the crime of conspiracy, and sentenced respectively to serve a term of one year in the county jail, and to pay a fine, each, of one thousand dollars, and in default of payment thereof at the expiration of the one-year term of imprisonment, to be confined in said jail until the fine be paid, at the rate of one day for every dollar thereof.

The first point made by counsel for petitioner is, that the complaint under which they were…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ex parte WadleighCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. People v. RighettiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Ex parte NeustadtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Carlos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  3. People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  4. People v. AveryCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. In Re ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

64 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