Legal Opinion

Ex parte Crittenden

California Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1881No. 10,622PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Application for writ of habeas corpus.

1Opinion of the Court

The Court:

The petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt by the Superior Court of San Francisco County, and was ordered to - pay a fine of $100, and to stand committed to the county jail for a period of one day for every two dollars of the unpaid portion of the fine. The order of the Court sets forth the facts constituting the contempt, and we are of the opinion that the facts show a case of contempt under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

*535But it is claimed that it was not competent for the Court to imprison the petitioner under an order or judgment simply imposing a fine. In the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. New Orleans v. Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Ex parte DickensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  2. Ex parte GouldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. In re BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. In Re CiraoloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Ex Parte KarlsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911

14 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