Prentice-Hall, Inc. v. Superior Court

Annotate this Case
[Civ. No. 18762. First Dist., Div. One. Oct. 30, 1959.]

PRENTICE-HALL, INC. (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARIN COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

COUNSEL

Herbert W. Clark, Girvan Peck and Morrison, Foerster, Holloway, Shuman & Clark for Petitioner.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, John S. McInerny, Deputy Attorney General, and William O. Weissich, District Attorney (Marin), for Respondent and Real Party in Interest.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum

TOBRINER, J.

The petition of Prentice-Hall for writ of prohibition to restrain the superior court from proceeding further upon the indictment returned against it raises the same factual matters and issues as have been previously discussed in the decisions in Davis v. Superior Court, No. 18759, ante, p. 8 [345 P.2d 513], and Longstreth v. Superior Court, No. 18760, ante, p. 27 [345 P.2d 525] decided this day.

For the reasons stated in those opinions, we have concluded that the indictment fails.

Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue.

Bray, P. J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.