From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blumenthal v. Municipal Court

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Dec 23, 1959
176 Cal.App.2d 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)

Opinion

Docket No. 23989.

December 23, 1959.

PROCEEDING in prohibition to prevent further proceedings in the Municipal Court of the City of Beverly Hills. Writ denied.

Ellis J. Horvitz for Petitioner.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel (Los Angeles), and Donald K. Byrne, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, and Arthur L. Martin, Deputy Attorney General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondent.


Petitioner seeks to prohibit further proceedings in the respondent court. He challenges the constitutionality of the statute under which he is charged. After his motion to dismiss was denied by the municipal court, on June 18, 1959, he petitioned the superior court for a writ of prohibition. In that petition he raised the same issue that is presented in his petition before this court. The petition was denied by the superior court.

This presents the same situation that was before this court in Lambert v. Municipal Court, 174 Cal.App.2d 601 [ 345 P.2d 98]. The rule of that case is decisive here.

The alternative writ heretofore issued is discharged and the petition is denied.

Fourt, Acting P.J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied January 19, 1960, and petitioner's application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 17, 1960. White, J., did not participate therein.


Summaries of

Blumenthal v. Municipal Court

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Dec 23, 1959
176 Cal.App.2d 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
Case details for

Blumenthal v. Municipal Court

Case Details

Full title:HERMAN BLUMENTHAL, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: Dec 23, 1959

Citations

176 Cal.App.2d 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
1 Cal. Rptr. 757

Citing Cases

Hankla v. Municipal Court

Neither respondent court nor real party in interest have questioned the propriety of entertaining a petition…

Castaneda v. Municipal Court

Neither respondent nor the real party in interest contest this assertion, and no contention is made by…