Krug v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Krug v. Superior Court

77 P.2d 854, 11 Cal. 2d 773, 1938 Cal. LEXIS 351

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1938

DocketS. F. No. 15947

StatusPublished

This text of 77 P.2d 854 (Krug v. Superior Court) 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

Krug v. Superior Court, 77 P.2d 854, 11 Cal. 2d 773, 1938 Cal. LEXIS 351 (Cal. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent judge, sitting in the [774]*774juvenile department of the respondent superior court, from proceeding as a committing magistrate with the preliminary hearing in the ease of People v. Jack Krug. The sole basis for the application for the writ is that the defendant in said action, the' petitioner herein, has made and filed with the clerk of said court and served on the district attorney a peremptory challenge in writing of the respondent judge as provided by section 170.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The document merely states that the defendant in said action “does hereby in writing peremptorily challenge the Honorable Frank H. Dunne, Judge of the above entitled court, sitting as a committing magistrate and assigned to try or hear the above entitled cause or pending matter, all in pursuance of the provisions of section 170.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California”.

In the proceeding entitled John W. Austin v. Robert B. Lambert et al., opinion and decision in which were filed this day (ante, p. 73 [77 Pac. (2d) 849]), it was declared that said section 170.5 was and is invalid and consequently of no force or effect. On the authority of that case the peremptory writ herein is denied and the alternative writ is discharged.

Rehearing denied.

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

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent judge, sitting in the [774]*774juvenile department of the respondent superior court, from proceeding as a committing magistrate with the preliminary hearing in the ease of People v. Jack Krug. The sole basis for the application for the writ is that the defendant in said action, the' petitioner herein, has made and filed with the clerk of said court and served on the district attorney a peremptory challenge in writing of the respondent judge as provided by section 170.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The document merely states that the defendant in said action “does hereby in writing peremptorily challenge the Honorable Frank H. Dunne, Judge of the above entitled court, sitting as a committing magistrate and assigned to try or hear the above entitled cause or pending matter, all in pursuance of the provisions of section 170.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California”.

In the proceeding entitled John W. Austin v. Robert B. Lambert et al., opinion and decision in which were filed this day (ante, p. 73 [77 Pac. (2d) 849]), it was declared that said section 170.5 was and is invalid and consequently of no force or effect. On the authority of that case the peremptory writ herein is denied and the alternative writ is discharged.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 P.2d 854, 11 Cal. 2d 773, 1938 Cal. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krug-v-superior-court-cal-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack