Legal Opinion

People v. Arthur

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 11, 1934No. Cr. A. 1046PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, P. J.

This prosecution was brought under the State Pharmacy Act (Stats. 1905, p. 535, secs. 1, 12, 13 and 17, as amended by Stats. 1933, p. 2192; sec. 16, as amended by Stats. 1929, p. 239). The complaint contains three counts, on each of which defendant was convicted, and he appeals. Count one charges that the defendant “did wilfully and unlawfully permit the sale of drugs and medicines, to-wit: peroxide of hydrogen, by Miss D. G. Goodwin, who was not then and there a registered pharmacist or assistant registered pharmacist, at a store or shop of which said defendant was the manager, located at…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. City & County of San Francisco v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  2. In Re MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Gordon v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Messner v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Rugg v. HooverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. DavidsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1957
  2. In Re GoddardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Brodsky v. California State Board of PharmacyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. People v. BeggsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

6 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