BLUMENTHAL v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS (1959)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Herman BLUMENTHAL, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, Respondent.

Civ. 23989.

Decided: December 23, 1959

Ellis J. Horvitz, Los Angeles, for petitioner. Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Donald K. Byrne, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Arthur L. Martin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae.

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.

SHEA, Justice pro tem.

FOURT, Acting P. J., and LILLIE, J., concur. Hearing denied; WHITE, J., not participating.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network