In re Rice

California Court of Appeal

In re Rice

80 P.2d 491, 27 Cal. App. 2d 768, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 745

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 16, 1938

DocketCrim. No. 2027

StatusPublished

This text of 80 P.2d 491 (In re Rice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Rice, 80 P.2d 491, 27 Cal. App. 2d 768, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

STURTEVANT, J.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. With few exceptions the facts are the same as in the proceeding entitled “In the Matter of the Application of Peter P. McDonough for a Writ of Habeas Corpus”, Crim. No. 2026, the decision in which was this day filed (ante, p. 155 [80 Pac. (2d) 485]). Instead of being one of the proprietors of a bail bond business, this petitioner is an employee of such proprietors, the McDonough Bros. He applied for a license under chapter 8, division 1, part 2 of the Insurance Code to act as an agent and solicitor. His application was denied without notice or a hearing. Otherwise the material facts are the same. The difference in the facts is not sufficient to change the rule. We think the decision mentioned is controlling.

The writ of habeas corpus is discharged and the petitioner is remanded.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

STURTEVANT, J.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. With few exceptions the facts are the same as in the proceeding entitled “In the Matter of the Application of Peter P. McDonough for a Writ of Habeas Corpus”, Crim. No. 2026, the decision in which was this day filed (ante, p. 155 [80 Pac. (2d) 485]). Instead of being one of the proprietors of a bail bond business, this petitioner is an employee of such proprietors, the McDonough Bros. He applied for a license under chapter 8, division 1, part 2 of the Insurance Code to act as an agent and solicitor. His application was denied without notice or a hearing. Otherwise the material facts are the same. The difference in the facts is not sufficient to change the rule. We think the decision mentioned is controlling.

The writ of habeas corpus is discharged and the petitioner is remanded.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 P.2d 491, 27 Cal. App. 2d 768, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rice-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack