Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 California opinions name it 3 courts 1923–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Murphygreen2 sentences1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ 1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ | 1 | 3 |
Fall River Joint Unified School District v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2023(See, e.g., Turner v. State 9 of California (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 883, 887-888, 891 [government claim premised liability on failure to provide adequate security but the complaint alleged a claim predicated on inadequate lighting]; Fall River Joint Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434-435 [government claim specified injury was based on dangerous and defective condition (unsafe door) but the complaint alleged a claim premised on negligent failure to supervise students]; Donohue v. State of California (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 795, 804 [government claim alleged that t | 1 | 1 |
Donohue v. State of Californiagreen1 sentence2023(See, e.g., Turner v. State 9 of California (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 883, 887-888, 891 [government claim premised liability on failure to provide adequate security but the complaint alleged a claim predicated on inadequate lighting]; Fall River Joint Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434-435 [government claim specified injury was based on dangerous and defective condition (unsafe door) but the complaint alleged a claim premised on negligent failure to supervise students]; Donohue v. State of California (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 795, 804 [government claim alleged that t | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. State of Californiagreen1 sentence2023(See, e.g., Turner v. State 9 of California (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 883, 887-888, 891 [government claim premised liability on failure to provide adequate security but the complaint alleged a claim predicated on inadequate lighting]; Fall River Joint Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434-435 [government claim specified injury was based on dangerous and defective condition (unsafe door) but the complaint alleged a claim premised on negligent failure to supervise students]; Donohue v. State of California (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 795, 804 [government claim alleged that t | 1 | 1 |
Cutujian v. Benedict Hills Estates Assn.green2 sentences2004In that case, the complaint alleged a violation of the Corporations Code relating to proxy and voting rights, but after an examination of what the case was actually about, the Court found that the "gist" of the action was to enforce the homeowners' voting rights under the governing documents. ( Id. at p. 720, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 158 ; see also Cutujian v. Benedict Hills Estates Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1388, fn. 2 , 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 166 [gravamen of an action labeled "continuing nuisance" was enforcement of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & R's)].) Here, although the cause of 2004In that case, the complaint alleged a violation of the Corporations Code relating to proxy and voting rights, but after an examination of what the case was actually about, the Court found that the "gist" of the action was to enforce the homeowners' voting rights under the governing documents. ( Id. at p. 720, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 158 ; see also Cutujian v. Benedict Hills Estates Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1388, fn. 2 , 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 166 [gravamen of an action labeled "continuing nuisance" was enforcement of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & R's)].) Here, although the cause of | 1 | 1 |
Bouvia v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1988It is recognized as a part of the right of privacy protected by both the state and federal constitutions. [Citations.]” (Bouvia v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1127, 1137 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; see also Bartling v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 186, 195 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 220 ].) The complaint alleged violation of plaintiff Avis Flott’s constitutional right of privacy by defendants’ refusal to remove the nasogastric tube from her body. 1988It is recognized as a part of the right of privacy protected by both the state and federal constitutions. [Citations.]” (Bouvia v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1127, 1137 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; see also Bartling v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 186, 195 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 220 ].) The complaint alleged violation of plaintiff Avis Flott’s constitutional right of privacy by defendants’ refusal to remove the nasogastric tube from her body. | 1 | 1 |
Bartling v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1988It is recognized as a part of the right of privacy protected by both the state and federal constitutions. [Citations.]” (Bouvia v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1127, 1137 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; see also Bartling v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 186, 195 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 220 ].) The complaint alleged violation of plaintiff Avis Flott’s constitutional right of privacy by defendants’ refusal to remove the nasogastric tube from her body. 1988It is recognized as a part of the right of privacy protected by both the state and federal constitutions. [Citations.]” (Bouvia v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1127, 1137 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; see also Bartling v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 186, 195 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 220 ].) The complaint alleged violation of plaintiff Avis Flott’s constitutional right of privacy by defendants’ refusal to remove the nasogastric tube from her body. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Jinglesgreen2 sentences1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ 1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte Taylorgreen2 sentences1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ 1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ | 1 | 1 |
Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfieldgreen2 sentences1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ 1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mingogreen2 sentences1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ 1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ | 1 | 1 |
In Re Simmonsgreen2 sentences1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ 1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Portnoy
green
2 sentences1950In disposing of the point of interest to us, the Supreme Court stated (p. 771): “The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. [Citing cases.] ” We would not have dwelt on this point so lengthily but for two cases: In re Sic (1887), 73 Cal. 142 [ 14 P. 405 ], and In re Portnoy (1942), 21 Cal.2d 237 [ 131 P.2d 1 ]. 1950In disposing of the point of interest to us, the Supreme Court stated (p. 771): “The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. [Citing cases.] ” We would not have dwelt on this point so lengthily but for two cases: In re Sic (1887), 73 Cal. 142 [ 14 P. 405 ], and In re Portnoy (1942), 21 Cal.2d 237 [ 131 P.2d 1 ]. | 2 | 1950–1950 |
In re Sic
green
2 sentences1950In disposing of the point of interest to us, the Supreme Court stated (p. 771): “The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. [Citing cases.] ” We would not have dwelt on this point so lengthily but for two cases: In re Sic (1887), 73 Cal. 142 [ 14 P. 405 ], and In re Portnoy (1942), 21 Cal.2d 237 [ 131 P.2d 1 ]. 1950In disposing of the point of interest to us, the Supreme Court stated (p. 771): “The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. [Citing cases.] ” We would not have dwelt on this point so lengthily but for two cases: In re Sic (1887), 73 Cal. 142 [ 14 P. 405 ], and In re Portnoy (1942), 21 Cal.2d 237 [ 131 P.2d 1 ]. | 2 | 1950–1950 |
In Re Von Perhacs
green
2 sentences1923The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law (Ex parte Murphy, 190 Cal. 286 [ 212 Pac. 30 ]; Matter of Von Perhacs, 190 Cal. 364 [ 212 Pac. 689 ] ; Ex parte Stephen, supra), but in the case at bar the sentence of imprisonment was not authorized by the state law. 1923The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law (Ex parte Murphy, 190 Cal. 286 [ 212 Pac. 30 ]; Matter of Von Perhacs, 190 Cal. 364 [ 212 Pac. 689 ] ; Ex parte Stephen, supra), but in the case at bar the sentence of imprisonment was not authorized by the state law. | 2 | 1923–1923 |
Blair v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2023(Turner, at pp. 888, 891; Fall River, at pp. 435-436; Donohue, at p. 804.) We find plaintiff’s reliance on Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221 , misplaced. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Souza & McCue Construction Co. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021The California Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for fraud now contained in section 338(d) applied because the complaint alleged a violation of a confidential relationship that amounted to constructive fraud.3 (Id. at p. 411.) The court explained, “The fact that a breach of contract is involved is not decisive as to the applicable statute of limitations.” (Ibid.) Day in turn relied on Souza & McCue Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 508 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Creason v. Department of Health Services
green
1 sentence2015Sierra Creason and her parents sued the Department of Health Services (DHS) after neonatal testing failed to disclose that Sierra was born without a functioning thyroid gland. ( Creason, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 626-627.) The complaint alleged that the test DHS designated was deficient, resulting in failure to diagnose Sierra‘s congenital hypothyroidism, which in turn led to a significant delay in treatment and irreversible injury. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lazar v. Hertz Corp.
green
2 sentences2011“Act issues are often decided on demurrer or motion for summary judgment when the business practice appears to be valid on its face as bearing a reasonable relation to appropriate commercial objectives for a public enterprise.” (Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494 , 1509 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 368 ].) That is the situation here. 2011“Act issues are often decided on demurrer or motion for summary judgment when the business practice appears to be valid on its face as bearing a reasonable relation to appropriate commercial objectives for a public enterprise.” (Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494 , 1509 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 368 ].) That is the situation here. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Whitfield v. Roth
green
1 sentence2004At that time, the information regarding the prior molestation was revealed.” In support of the delayed discovery rule of accrual, plaintiff cited Whitfield, supra, 10 Cal.3d at page 885 , which held that accrual of a minor’s cause of action for medical malpractice is delayed until the parent discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the injury and its negligent cause. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kaplan v. Fairway Oaks Homeowners Ass'n
green
2 sentences2004In that case, the complaint alleged a violation of the Corporations Code relating to proxy and voting rights, but after an examination of what the case was actually about, the Court found that the "gist" of the action was to enforce the homeowners' voting rights under the governing documents. ( Id. at p. 720, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 158 ; see also Cutujian v. Benedict Hills Estates Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1388, fn. 2 , 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 166 [gravamen of an action labeled "continuing nuisance" was enforcement of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & R's)].) Here, although the cause of 2004(Kaplan v. Fairway Oaks Homeowners Association, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 720 ; see also Cutujian v. Benedict Hills Estates Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1388, fn. 2 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 166 ] [gravamen of an action labeled “continuing nuisance” was enforcement of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s)].) Here, although the cause of action came with a promissory estoppel label, appellants’ theory was actually based on Ocean Towers Housing Corporation’s alleged violation of its duty to repair appellants’ earthquake-damaged apartments and to restore those apartments to their origi | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mills v. Schulba
green
2 sentences1969For example, in Mills v. Schulba, 95 Cal.App.2d 559 [ 213 P.2d 408 ], the complaint alleged an error of the attorney “jointly employed. ’ ’ At bench, there is no suggestion in count I of the first action that the respondent in any way shared in the mistake of the appellant or the scrivener. 1969For example, in Mills v. Schulba, 95 Cal.App.2d 559 [ 213 P.2d 408 ], the complaint alleged an error of the attorney “jointly employed. ’ ’ At bench, there is no suggestion in count I of the first action that the respondent in any way shared in the mistake of the appellant or the scrivener. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Ex parte Stephen
green
2 sentences1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], "The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ..." (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ]; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ]; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 [ 1960As stated in In re Mingo, 190 Cal. 769, 771 [ 214 P. 850 ], “The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved showed a violation of the state law. ...” (See also In re Murphy, 190 Cal. 286, 291-293 [ 212 P. 30 ]; Ex parte Stephen, supra, 114 Cal. 278, 283 ; Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 95 [ 25 P. 258 ]; In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 499 [ 165 P.2d 12 ] ; In re Simmons, 199 Cal. 590, 595 [ 250 P. 684 ] ; Olivieri v. Police Court of Bakersfield, 62 Cal.App. 91, 94-95 | 1 | 1960–1960 |
In Re Murphy
neutral
1 sentence1923In the Mingo case, supra, the court says: “The mere fact that the complaint alleged a violation of the county ordinance instead of the state law, would not render the judgment void in so far as the facts alleged and proved show a violation of the law (Ex parte Murphy, 185 Cal. 298 [ 212 Pac. 30 ]; Matter of Von Perhacs, 190 Cal. 364 [ 212 Pac. 689 ]); but in the ease at bar the sentence of imprisonment was not authorized by the state law.” In re Murphy, supra, the petitioner sought to secure his release from custody after conviction for operating an automobile carelessly and recklessly on a pu | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.