Legal Opinion

In Re Ballestra

California Supreme Court

Decided November 16, 1916No. Crim. No. 2028PublishedCited by 10 opinions

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The petitioner is in custody upon the charge of having violated the provisions of the act of June 5, 1915, in effect August 8, 1915, amending the prior act of March 1, 1911. (Stats. 1915, p. 1215.)

Section 1 of the statute is, in part, as follows:

“No person, firm or corporation shall issue, in payment of or as an evidence of indebtedness for wages due an employee, any order, check, memorandum, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness, unless the same is negotiable, and is payable upon demand without discount in cash at some bank or other established place of business in the state; and no…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mutual Loan Co. v. MartellSupreme Court of the United States · 1911

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In Re TrombleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Voris v. LampertCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Haviland v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. In Re MoffettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. In Re OswaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926

5 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