Legal Opinion

Oppenheimer v. Ashburn

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 14, 1959No. Civ. 18508PublishedCited by 25 opinions

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

  1. Bradley v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Turpen v. BoothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Leavitt v. Lassen Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Austin v. LambertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. State ex rel. Walker v. DobsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  2. Berry v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  3. Deauville v. HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Baar v. TigermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. Soliz v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

20 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