In Re Hallinan
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtKnight, Acting P. J.
While acting as attorney for the defendant in a criminal case the petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt of court. He has applied for a writ of habeas corpus. In his return the sheriff sets forth that he holds the petitioner by virtue of a judgment and commitment reading as follows, to wit:
“Be it remembered, that on this 2nd day of September, 1932, in the Superior Court of the State" of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, in Department 12 thereof, the Honorable Frank H. Dunne presiding, in the above-entitled matter, the defendants Albert Tinnin and Frank J. Egan…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Ex Parte TerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- In re ShortridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Ex parte Ah MenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- In re ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- In Re LakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Gallagher v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- In Re McKinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- People v. TinninCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Hallinan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Raiden v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.