History
  • No items yet
midpage
Whitney v. Superior Court of Alameda County
182 Cal. 114
| Cal. | 1920
|
Check Treatment

This is an application for a writ of prohibition. [1] We see no merit in the claim that the act under which petitioner is being prosecuted is invalid as being in violation of provisions of our federal and state constitutions.

No other point made goes to the jurisdiction of the superior court, and consequently prohibition is not available to *Page 115 petitioner. [2] The remedy where an information is filed in the superior court without a previous commitment by a magistrate is by motion to set aside the information on that ground (Pen. Code, sec. 995 et seq.), with a right to review of the action of the trial court on an appeal from the judgment. [3] The objections to the sufficiency of the information to state a public offense fall within the rule announced in In re Ruef,150 Cal. 665, [89 P. 605]. We express no opinion on the merits of the claims made by petitioner in regard to these matters.

The application for a writ of prohibition is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., Lennon, J., Shaw, J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Whitney v. Superior Court of Alameda County
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 26, 1920
Citation: 182 Cal. 114
Docket Number: S. F. No. 9356.
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.