Legal Opinion

In Re Garbarini

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 15, 1933No. Docket No. 1245PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPullen, P. J.

This is a proceeding on hateas corpus. Petitioner was arrested and convicted upon a complaint filed in a justice court which designated the offense as “crime of killing a doe, a misdemeanor”, it being therein charged that defendant at a certain time and place within the jurisdiction of the court “did wilfully and unlawfully kill a doe”.

The defendant was by the court tried and found guilty and a judgment was rendered finding the defendant “guilty as charged”.

Petitioner now urges that the complaint as filed did not state a public offense and that the judgment does not state any offense of which…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Tobias WatkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
  2. Ex parte MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. People v. EppingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Ex parte KearnyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Ex parte McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re MeisnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  2. In Re ElsholzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. In re FerrariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. State v. ZumwaltMontana Supreme Court · 1955
  5. State v. ZumwaltMontana Supreme Court · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API