In re Landowitz

Annotate this Case
[Crim. No. 1972. First Appellate District, Division One. September 14, 1937.]

In the Matter of the Application of CARL LANDOWITZ for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

COUNSEL

Edward B. Dienstag and I. M. Peckham for Petitioner.

Matthew Brady, District Attorney, and William J. Connolly, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.

Walter McGovern, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum

The Court.

[1] The questions presented in the above matter are essentially the same as those decided in In re Kazas, an application for a writ of habeas corpus, ante, p. 161 [70 PaCal.2d 962]; and on the authority thereof the petitioner is discharged.

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.