In re Crowley

California Supreme Court

In re Crowley

171 Cal. 58

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 8, 1915

DocketCrim. No. 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 171 Cal. 58 (In re Crowley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Crowley, 171 Cal. 58 (Cal. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

ANGELLOTTI, C. J.

The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is unlawfully imprisoned under a warrant of arrest issued upon a complaint charging him with the violation of the provisions of certain sections of a municipal ordinance. His claim is that such ordinance is unconstitutional. There is not presented as a part of or with the petition a copy of the complaint or a copy of the municipal ordinance for the violation of which the petitioner is held in custody. Without a copy of the ordinance there is nothing before us to indicate whether there is any basis for the claim made by petitioner. A copy of the complaint should also accompany such an application, in order that the petition may clearly show exactly what the charge against the petitioner is. We deem the showing made in this case insufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Shaw, J., Sloss, J., Lawlor, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ANGELLOTTI, C. J.

The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is unlawfully imprisoned under a warrant of arrest issued upon a complaint charging him with the violation of the provisions of certain sections of a municipal ordinance. His claim is that such ordinance is unconstitutional. There is not presented as a part of or with the petition a copy of the complaint or a copy of the municipal ordinance for the violation of which the petitioner is held in custody. Without a copy of the ordinance there is nothing before us to indicate whether there is any basis for the claim made by petitioner. A copy of the complaint should also accompany such an application, in order that the petition may clearly show exactly what the charge against the petitioner is. We deem the showing made in this case insufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Shaw, J., Sloss, J., Lawlor, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 Cal. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-crowley-cal-1915.