In Re Yahne

224 P. 452, 193 Cal. 386, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 316
California Supreme Court·Decided March 13, 1924·No. Crim. No. 2656.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

At the conclusion of the oral argument in the above-entitled matter the Chief Justice made the following statement:

[1] The Chief Justice: The justices are all satisfied that the complaint upon which the petitioner is held, as shown by the return, states a public offense, and that the question of whether or not the petitioner was guilty or innocent of that offense is the question counsel is now presenting to the court in his effort to show that the petitioner was engaged *Page 387 in interstate commerce and that an attempted prohibition of that interstate commerce was a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution. We do not believe the record before us presents that question, and hold that the remedy of the petitioner is to defend the case before the trial court.

The petition will be denied and the prisoner remanded for the reasons stated and the remarks of the court will be transcribed and made the written opinion of the court.

Petitioner remanded.

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

In Re Yahne, 224 P. 452, 193 Cal. 386, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 316 (Cal. 1924).

224 P. 452 (In Re Yahne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKenzie v. Santa Fe Trail Stages
78 P.2d 435 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Lindenberg v. Brodek
78 P.2d 466 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Isett v. Frees
77 P.2d 873 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)