Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Biggs

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided July 5, 1935No. A-8902PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdwards, J.

This is an original proceeding in ha-beas corpus. Petitioner alleges he is unlawfully restrained by the chief of police of Oklahoma City; that he was charged in the municipal court with a violation of Ordi nance No. 3944 and amendatory ordinance No. 4596, and was assessed a fine of $19 and in default of payment was committed to the municipal jail. He alleges the amenda-tory ordinance No. 4596, as applied to him, is ex post facto and unconstitutional; that relief may be had by habeas corpus, citing Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176, 9 S. Ct. 672, 33 L. Ed. 118. The pertinent part of ordinance…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Ex Parte GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. NielsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  3. Chicago & Alton Railroad v. TranbargerSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  4. Samuels v. McCurdySupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  5. Gant v. Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1933

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ex Parte CourterCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1935
  2. Ex Parte CourterCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1935
  3. Opinion No., Oklahoma Attorney General Reports2006

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

Powered by the Exa API