Legal Opinion
People v. Spagnoli
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 19, 1922No. Crim. No. 624PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The defendant was convicted of the violation of a county ordinance, commonly known as the “Little Volstead Act,” and he appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. The charging part of the information is as follows:
“The said named defendant did on or about the 8th day of August, 1921, at and in the said county of Tuolumne, state of California, then and there willfully and unlawfully and in violation of ordinance No. 107 of the county of Tuolumne, being an ordinance prohibiting the sale, manufacture or unlawful possession or transportation of intoxicating…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. MayenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- People v. SteelikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- People v. Boo Doo HongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- People v. OppenheimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- People v. TomasovichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hall v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924
- People v. RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- People v. FaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- State v. SnyderNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. FuentesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990