Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 Cal. 41

Ex parte Miller

California Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1891

California Supreme Court · decided 1891-05-06

<p>Application to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-05-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1955

5 state decisions

201891190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court.

¶1— The petitioner sets forth “ that he is held under a warrant of arrest issued by the police court of the city and county of San Francisco, upon a complaint charging him with uttering, etc., profane and obscene language, and words and language having a tendency to create a breach of the peace, in violation of section 28, order 1587, of the board of supervisors of said city and county of San Francisco,” and alleges as a reason for the issuance of the writ, “ that said ordinance is null and void, as the penalty imposed for its violation by section 1 thereof is a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, which is unreasonable, and renders the ordinance void.”

¶2We can conceive of many cases in which a fine of one thousand dollars and an imprisonment for the term of six months would not be an unreasonable punishment for the uttering of profane and obscene language in the presence of other persons. Whether the offense in any particular case is sufficient to justify such punishment must be determined by the court before whom the offense is tried.

¶3The application for the writ is denied.

/89/cal/41 · .json · Public domain