In re Rice

California Court of Appeal Jun 16, 1938 No. Crim. No. 2027Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the denial of a bail bond agent's license application without notice or a hearing does not entitle the petitioner to a writ of habeas corpus, as the case is controlled by the decision in the related McDonough matter.

Issues

Whether the denial of a license application for a bail bond agent without notice or a hearing warrants the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Disposition. Writ discharged and petitioner remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The difference in the facts is not sufficient to change the rule. We think the decision mentioned is controlling.”

“The writ of habeas corpus is discharged and the petitioner is remanded.”

STURTEVANT, J. This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. With few exceptions the facts are the same as in the proceeding entitled “In the Matter of the Application of Peter P. McDonough for a Writ of Habeas Corpus”, Crim. No. 2026, the decision in which was this day filed (ante, p. 155 [80 Pac. (2d) 485]). Instead of being one of the proprietors of a bail bond business, this petitioner is an employee of such proprietors, the McDonough Bros. He applied for a license under chapter 8, division 1, part 2 of the Insurance Code to act as an agent and solicitor. His application was denied without notice or a hearing. Otherwise the material facts are the same. The difference in the facts is not sufficient to change the rule. We think the decision mentioned is controlling.

The writ of habeas corpus is discharged and the petitioner is remanded.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

In re Rice

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief