Legal Opinion

People v. Bowlin

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 2, 1937No. Crim. 2931PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, P. J.

Following defendant’s conviction by the trial court, sitting without a jury, on' each of two charges, to wit, those which are commonly known as “drunk driving” and “hit-and-run”, the court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial, but granted his subsequent application for probation ; whereupon defendant appealed from the order by which his motion for a new trial was denied.

Appellant presents neither argument nor authority with relation to his conviction on the charge of ‘ ‘ drunk driving”, but confines his efforts on this appeal to the sole point that the trial court erred in refusing to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Max Factor & Co. v. KunsmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Castillo v. McConnicoSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Ramish v. HartwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. People v. FoderaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  5. In Re DurandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Twin Falls Canal Co. v. HuffIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
  2. State v. LemmeSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1968
  3. Kershaw v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. City & County of San Francisco v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  5. City & County of SF v. Ind. Acc. Com.California Court of Appeal · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API