Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Marriott

California Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 1933No. Docket No. Crim. 3626PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

Proceeding in habeas corpus. Petitioner Charles Marriott alleges that he is confined upon two criminal complaints, one filed in the San Francisco municipal court, the other in the Fresno police court, both charging a violation of section 50% of the Public Utilities Act (Deering’s Gen. Laws, vol. 2, Act 6386, title 464, p. 3522 et seq.), which provides that no passenger stage corporation shall operate any passenger stage over any public highway in this state without first having obtained from the Railroad Commission a certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity require such…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ex Parte MeyersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  2. People v. HenryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Roberts v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. People v. Miles & Sons Trucking Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1968
  3. People v. StolzoffAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1945
  4. People v. StolzoffAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API