In Re Kavanaugh

California Supreme Court

In Re Kavanaugh

179 P. 533, 180 Cal. 181, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 461

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1919

DocketCrim. No. 2241.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 179 P. 533 (In Re Kavanaugh) 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 Kavanaugh, 179 P. 533, 180 Cal. 181, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 461 (Cal. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] The information in the superior court upon which the judgment against petitioner is based clearly attempted to charge the felony defined by section 476a of the Penal Code. Whether the specific facts alleged as constituting the particular offense failed to sufficiently show the public offense attempted to be charged is a question which cannot be considered on habeas corpus under the well-settled rule of this jurisdiction. (Matter of Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, [89 P. 605]; see, also, Ex parte Greenall, 153 Cal. 770, [96 P. 804].)

As to the second point, in view of the facts and exhibits shown by the petition, it must be held that the superior court did vacate the order suspending the execution of the judgment.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied for these reasons.

Shaw, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Olney, J., Lawlor, J., Melvin, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.

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

[1] The information in the superior court upon which the judgment against petitioner is based clearly attempted to charge the felony defined by section 476a of the Penal Code. Whether the specific facts alleged as constituting the particular offense failed to sufficiently show the public offense attempted to be charged is a question which cannot be considered on habeas corpus under the well-settled rule of this jurisdiction. (Matter of Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, [89 P. 605]; see, also, Ex parte Greenall, 153 Cal. 770, [96 P. 804].)

As to the second point, in view of the facts and exhibits shown by the petition, it must be held that the superior court did vacate the order suspending the execution of the judgment.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied for these reasons.

Shaw, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Olney, J., Lawlor, J., Melvin, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 P. 533, 180 Cal. 181, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kavanaugh-cal-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack