Legal Opinion

People v. Wahl

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 14, 1940No. Cr. A. 1664PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, P. J.

Section 654a of the Penal Code prohibits advertising containing any statement which “is false or untrue, in any respect, or which is deceptive or misleading, and which is known, or by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be false or untrue, deceptive or misleading”. The controlling words here are: False, untrue, deceptive, misleading. Whatever construction may be put, in this statute, on the word “false”, which sometimes connotes an intent to deceive and sometimes does not (25 Cor. Jur. 436; People v. Wong Fook Sam, (1905) 146 Cal. 114, 118 [79 Pac. 848]), or on the word…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. ChilcottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  2. People v. ZirbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. People v. Wong Fook SamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. State v. Beacon Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1935

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
  2. Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Audio Fidelity, Inc., a Corporation v. High Fidelity Recordings, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
  4. Webster v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Bruton v. Gerber Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017

14 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