Ex parte Keeney
Citations
- 84 Cal. 304
- 24 P. 34
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 809
Syllabus
<p>Constitutional Law — Police Power — Sanitary Regulation of City and County — Conflict with General Laws.—Under section 11 of article 11 of the constitution (which is applicable to consolidated cities and counties by section 7 of the same article), the city and county of San Francisco can only make such sanitary regulations as are not in conflict with general laws; and all sanitary provisions conflicting with such laws are unauthorized and void.</p> <p>Id. — Municipal Order Regulating Death Certificates and Permits for Interments — Conflict with Political Code.—Order No. 2162 of the board o£ supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, regulating the granting of certificates of death and the issuance of permits for interments, and punishing the health officer as for a misdemeanor upon non-compliance therewith, is unconstitutional and void, as being in conflict with the provisions of the Political Code relating to the same subject, and punishing the health officer for doing what the general law of the state not only authorizes but requires him to do.</p> <p>Id. — Habeas Corpus — Punishment under Void Municipal Ordinance. — A person subjected to punishment for violation of an unconstitutional municipal ordinance will be released upon writ of habeas corpus.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that a witness’s veracity may be affirmatively attacked by questions on cross-examination “eliciting inconsistencies between his testimony at trial and his previous statement,” even if the witness is not directly accused of lying
- rejecting ineffective assistance claim based on failure to impeach with prior convictions because trial court would not have abused discretion in denying use of convictions
- rejecting ineffective assistance claim based on failure to impeach with prior convictions 11 because trial court would not have abused discretion in denying use of convictions
- finding defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object to alleged hearsay testimony, even if the failure constituted deficient performance, because the testimony was cumulative of other testimony and evidence
- no prejudice from trial counsel’s mistake of fact in opening statement when trial court instructed jury that opening statements are not evidence
- counsel’s decision not to request instruction on self-defense was not deficient performance where the instruction was inconsistent with the defense theory
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fox
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.