Legal Opinion
People v. McFarlan
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 14, 1932No. Docket No. 148PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMES, J., pro tem.
The appellant was convicted of a violation of the provisions of section 2 of an act of the legislature approved June 13, 1923, commonly known as the “Firearms Act”. (Stats. 1923, p. 695.) The charging part of the information is as follows: “The District Attorney of the Cbunty of Fresno hereby accuses Robert Roy McFarlan of a felony to-wit: Possession by an exconvict of a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, in that on or about the 27th day of May, 1932, in the County of Fresno, State of California, he had in his possession and under his custody and control a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gavieres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Morey v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Ebeling v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Murphy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1923
- People v. BrannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- People v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- People v. ColtrinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- People v. CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- People v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- People v. IsraelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.