Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Brewer

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 13, 2015No. C075255Published

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

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. In Re DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Oregon Advocacy Center v. MinkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  5. In Re MilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

4 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