Legal Opinion

People v. Kinsley

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 25, 1931No. Docket No. 223PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FREEMAN, J., pro tem.

The defendant was charged by an information filed by the district attorney with the offense of committing a felony by violating a statute entitled, “An Act to regulate the sale and use of narcotics in the State of California, and providing a penalty for the violation thereof,” approved May 4, 1929 (Stats. 1929, p. 380), as follows: “The said William I. Kinsley on or about the 10th day of September, A. D., nineteen hundred and thirty at the said County of San Diego,' State of California, and before the filing of this information did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. People v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  2. People v. SteelikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. People v. RodleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Ex Parte HornefCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. People v. LeyshonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. People v. DitsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. People v. IvesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. People v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. People v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

25 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