In re Teatsen
In the Matter of the Application of JOHN F. TEATSEN for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Shaw (author)
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 — Shaw
SHAW, J.
The application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case is based on the same facts as are set forth in the Case of Hinkelman, ante, p. 392, [191 Pac. 682], decided concurrently herewith, except that Teatsen is charged with driving an empty motor truck of one-ton capacity, instead of an ordinary automobile, and equipped with a Dillon lens instead of a Warner lens. Said Dillon lens is also of the diffusive type referred to in section 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act, [Stats. 1919, p. 206]. The law on the subject of such vehicles and lenses is the same as applicable to automobiles carrying Warner lenses, and the principles stated in the case of Hinkelman are decisive of the present case.
It is therefore ordered that the said John F. Teatsen be remanded to the custody of the officer.
Lawlor, J., Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Lennon, J., and Olney, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Hinkelman Crim. No. 2283. · 1920-07-27