In Re Landowitz
- Area
- other
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
22 Cal.App.2d 733 (1937) In the Matter of the Application of CARL LANDOWITZ for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Crim. No. 1972. California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division One.
September 14, 1937. Edward B. Dienstag and I. M. Peckham for Petitioner.
Matthew Brady, District Attorney, and William J. Connolly, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.
Walter McGovern, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Respondent.
Memorandum The Court.
[1] The questions presented in the above matter are essentially the same as those decided in In re Kazas, an application for a writ of habeas corpus, ante, p. 161 [70 PaCal.2d 962]; and on the authority thereof the petitioner is discharged.
Cites, in this corpus
- In re Landowitz Crim. No. 1972 · 1937-09-14
Cited by
- Doyle v. Board of Barber Examiners Civ. 10569 · 1963-08-21
- French Art Cleaners v. State Board of Dry Cleaners Civ. 13913 · 1948-10-16