Ex parte Lawrence

California Supreme Court Feb 4, 1882 No. No. 10,725Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged from custody, relying on the precedent established in the case of Chin Tan.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from custody.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged, and he will therefore be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco.”

Synopsis

Municipal Ordinance—Judgment—Eme and Imprisonment.

The Court: In this cause, the only question is as to the judgment, which is similar to that in the case of Chin Tan, No. 10,716. On the authority of that case, with the result of which we are satisfied, this must be determined, and it follows from it that the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged, and he will therefore be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco.

So ordered.

More from California Supreme Court

People v. Wende (1979)
People v. Watson (1956)
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
People v. Kelly (2006)
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
People v. Lewis (2021)
In Re Estrada (1965)
Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
People v. Marsden (1970)

Related research