Oppenheimer v. Ashburn
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges liability of defendant judges under a statute which calls for a forfeiture 'of an amount not exceeding $5,000 for refusal to grant an order for a writ of habeas corpus ‘ ‘ after a proper application is made. ” As we point out infra, the complaint succumbs to a general demurrer because it consists of conclusionary plead ings, and, because, under plaintiff’s theory that the section applies to the exercise of judicial judgment, it fails to state a cause of action since the statute is unconstitutional. We shall point out, likewise, that the court properly sustained…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bradley v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Turpen v. BoothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Leavitt v. Lassen Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Austin v. LambertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- State ex rel. Walker v. DobsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Berry v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Deauville v. HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Baar v. TigermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Soliz v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.