Ex parte Bird
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Lindley (Cal. 1947)
- In re McVickers (Cal. 1946)
- West Coast Theatres, Inc. v. City of Pomona (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
- Rodriguez v. Bureau of Corrections (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands 2013)
- In re Myrtle (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
- Ex Parte Fedderwitz (Cal. 1900)
- N. & W. R. R. v. Commonwealth (Va. 1892)
- Ex parte Lehmkuhl (Cal. 1887)
- Knapp v. Thomas (Ohio 1883)
- Ex Parte Koser (Cal. 1882)
- Ex parte Burk (Cal. 1881)
- Ex parte Burk (Cal. 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
We think there is no ground shown in the petition for the issuance of the writ. We have held already, in ex parte Andrews, that the “ Sunday Law,” as it is commonly called, is constitutional. We are entirely satisfied with that decision. It seems that the petitioner was convicted of a violation of this law. He claims in his petition that he did not violate its provisions; that he kept a bar in the hotel, as a part of the business of the hotel, and this is the sole charge against him. If this be true, he must avail himself in some other mode of this matter of defense. The writ of habeas corpus was not framed to retry issues of fact, or to review the proceedings of a legal trial. The complaint does not show that the bar was kept as a part of the business of the hotel.
Petition refused.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.