People v. Brewer
California Court of Appeal
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.,
Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the permanent injunction must be dissolved. I also concur in the majority’s conclusion that the superior court’s attempt to modify the permanent injunction after the notice of appeal was filed is void. I respectfully dissent, however, as to what is to be done on remand. In my opinion, the law does not allow the superior court to craft a new permanent injunction, but instead requires the court to decide each defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on its own unique facts.
I
Due Process Rights…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- In Re DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Oregon Advocacy Center v. MinkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- In Re MilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.