Legal Opinion

People v. Frankovich

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 19, 1923No. Crim. No. 719PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The district attorney of Humboldt County filed in the superior court of said county an information accusing the defendants of the crime of maintaining a common nuisance, as said offense is defined by section 21 of the Volstead Act, as adopted by the so-called Wright Act enacted by the legislature and later approved by the people of California under the power of referendum, for the purpose of enforcing within the limits of said state the mandates of the eighteenth amendment to the federal constitution. The defendants Frankovich and White were convicted and the defendant Gutenich was acquitted…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lawson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
  2. Commonwealth v. HolstineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  3. In Re BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. People v. PeraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  5. People v. TomasovichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. MehraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  2. People v. HollandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. People v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  4. State v. PetersMontana Supreme Court · 1924
  5. People v. LocurtoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API