Legal Opinion
People v. Conklin
California Supreme Court
Decided June 12, 1974No. Crim. 17039PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
Defendant James E. Conklin was charged by information with committing several acts prohibited by Penal Code section 631, sub division (a). 1 He demurred to the information (§ 1004, subd. 4), asserting that section 631 is invalid because it conflicts with, or attempts to regulate the same area covered by title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2510-2520'; referred to hereafter as title III.) The trial court sustained the demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal. (§ 1008.) The People appeal from that judgment. (§ 1238, subd.…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Berger v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Perez. v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- United States v. F. Thomas Little, United States of America v. Peter Chernik, United States of America v. Harold GrutchfieldCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Commonwealth v. VitelloMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1980
- United States v. James Joseph Testa, United States of America v. Edward EpsteinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.