TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Ah Sing

In the Matter of Ah Sing for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In re Ah Sing, 104 P. 448 (Cal. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 30, 1909
Docket
No. Crim. No. 1565.
Judges
THE COURT.
Citations
104 P. 448156 Cal. 3491909 Cal. LEXIS 331
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Habeas Corpus—Criminal Law—Complaint in Inferior Court.—The question whether a complaint in a court of limited or inferior jurisdiction states facts sufficient to constitute a public offense may be determined on habeas corpus.
Summary
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriff of San Diego County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied for the reason that so far as we can see the complaint in the justice’s court, under which petitioner is in custody, clearly states a public offense under the laws of this state. In view of the statement in the petition for the writ to the effect that a difference of opinion exists among the courts of this state as to the right of a court on habeas corpus to determine the question whether a complaint in a court of limited or inferior jurisdiction states facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, it appears proper to say that the rule in this state in that regard is correctly stated in Ex parte Greenall, 153 Cal. 767, 770 , [ 96 Pac. 804 ], in which case it is plainly pointed out that the rule is different from the one applied to courts of general jurisdiction, as in Ex parte Ruef, 150 Cal. 665 , [ 89 Pac. 605 ], An examination of the opinion in the case of Tobias Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 193, cited in the Greenall case, will disclose grounds for this distinction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1921: 11923: 21933: 11934: 11942: 11943: 119212026peak 1923 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Bell122 P.2d 22 (Cal. 1942)
  2. In re MacKay ex rel. Parker134 P.2d 302 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
  3. In re Hayward216 P. 414 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  4. In re Culver202 P. 661 (Cal. 1921)
  5. In re Hernandez220 P. 423 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. In re Garbarini19 P.2d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)

Most recent

  1. In re MacKay ex rel. Parker134 P.2d 302 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
  2. In re Bell122 P.2d 22 (Cal. 1942)
  3. In re Ferrari38 P.2d 795 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
  4. In re Garbarini19 P.2d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
  5. In re Hernandez220 P. 423 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. In re Hayward216 P. 414 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Ruef, 89 P. 605 (Cal. 1907) 44
Ex Parte Greenall, 96 P. 804 (Cal. 1908) 36

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list