Legal Opinion

In Re Rothrock

California Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 1939No. Crim. 4200; Crim. 4201; Crim. 4046PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

By this consolidated proceeding, the applicant, Donald A. Rothrock, has moved and petitioned this court for writ of coram nobis, writ of audita querela, writ of habeas corpus, writ of certiorari, recall of remittitur, revocation and annulment of judgment, subpoena duces tecum, production of documents, permission to appear and testify, and other and further relief. Uncertain of his remedy, petitioner has couched his plea in these various forms, but the allegations in each instance are identical, and the prayer in substance is that, regardless of form, he be given the relief to which…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. RamirezIdaho Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Rowland v. KreyenhagenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Isenberg v. ShermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Trumpler v. TrumplerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Municipal Bond Co. v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. People v. BraxtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. In Re RothrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. People v. Chan ChaunCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. In Re MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. People v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

27 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