Zeigler v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Zeigler v. Superior Court

24 P.2d 899, 134 Cal. App. 88, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 101

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 30, 1933

DocketDocket No. 9243.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 P.2d 899 (Zeigler v. Superior Court) 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

Zeigler v. Superior Court, 24 P.2d 899, 134 Cal. App. 88, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

KNIGHT, J.

Petitioner, a prisoner in the state prison at Folsom, has made application in propria persona to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to hear and determine a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he claims was heretofore filed by him in said court. It appears from the present application, however, that at the time petitioner claims to have instituted said habeas corpiis proceeding in the city and county of San Francisco he was imprisoned in the state prison at Folsom, Sacramento County; and the Constitution provides that superior courts *89 have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus on behalf of any person in actual custody, “in their respective counties”. (Art. VI, sec. 5, Const.) It is evident, therefore, that there was no legal duty imposed upon the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to entertain said proceeding; and upon that ground the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

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

KNIGHT, J.

Petitioner, a prisoner in the state prison at Folsom, has made application in propria persona to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to hear and determine a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he claims was heretofore filed by him in said court. It appears from the present application, however, that at the time petitioner claims to have instituted said habeas corpiis proceeding in the city and county of San Francisco he was imprisoned in the state prison at Folsom, Sacramento County; and the Constitution provides that superior courts *89 have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus on behalf of any person in actual custody, “in their respective counties”. (Art. VI, sec. 5, Const.) It is evident, therefore, that there was no legal duty imposed upon the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to entertain said proceeding; and upon that ground the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 P.2d 899, 134 Cal. App. 88, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeigler-v-superior-court-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack