In re Teatsen

California Supreme Court

In re Teatsen

183 Cal. 800

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 27, 1920

DocketCrim. No. 2282

StatusPublished

This text of 183 Cal. 800 (In re Teatsen) 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 Teatsen, 183 Cal. 800 (Cal. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case is based on the same facts as are set forth in the Case of Hinkelman, ante, p. 392, [191 Pac. 682], decided concurrently herewith, except that Teatsen is charged with driving an empty motor truck of one-ton capacity, instead of an ordinary automobile, and equipped with a Dillon lens instead of a Warner lens. Said Dillon lens is also of the diffusive type referred to in section 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act, [Stats. 1919, p. 206]. The law on the subject of such vehicles and lenses is the same as applicable to automobiles carrying Warner lenses, and the principles stated in the case of Hinkelman are decisive of the present case.

It is therefore ordered that the said John F. Teatsen be remanded to the custody of the officer.

Lawlor, J., Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Lennon, J., and Olney, J., concurred.

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

SHAW, J.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case is based on the same facts as are set forth in the Case of Hinkelman, ante, p. 392, [191 Pac. 682], decided concurrently herewith, except that Teatsen is charged with driving an empty motor truck of one-ton capacity, instead of an ordinary automobile, and equipped with a Dillon lens instead of a Warner lens. Said Dillon lens is also of the diffusive type referred to in section 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act, [Stats. 1919, p. 206]. The law on the subject of such vehicles and lenses is the same as applicable to automobiles carrying Warner lenses, and the principles stated in the case of Hinkelman are decisive of the present case.

It is therefore ordered that the said John F. Teatsen be remanded to the custody of the officer.

Lawlor, J., Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Lennon, J., and Olney, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 Cal. 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-teatsen-cal-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack