Legal Opinion

People v. Wright

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 15, 1955No. Docket Nos. 191979, 191980PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurch, J.

Defendant was charged in two separate actions with the violation of the Civil Engineers’ Act and the Architects’ Act, respectively. The defendant is not certified or licensed under either act. The court below sustained a demurrer to each amended complaint without leave to amend. The People have appealed and make no point that they were denied leave to further amend. They contend that in each case the amended complaint stated a public offense. We will, therefore, consider on this appeal only the sufficiency of the respective complaints to state a public offense whether it be as a matter of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. State v. BrandtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875
  3. City of Los Angeles v. Belridge Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Bania v. Town of New HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  5. Rolland & Johnston v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. HornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  2. Friedman v. City of Beverly HillsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. People v. HornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. People v. WrightAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API