Legal Opinion

People v. Settles

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 28, 1938No. Cr. A. 1486PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, P. J.

Defendants were convicted on a charge of running a lottery, and they appeal. They were not the proprietors of the place where the acts forming the basis of the charge were committed, but merely employees. They rest their defense in part on the fact that the proprietors had a license from the city of Los Angeles to operate the particular game found by the jury to be a lottery. They testified that they knew of this license and in reliance on it supposed the game to be lawful. Hence, it is argued, they had no criminal intent. The license above mentioned was issued under a Los Angeles city…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Sorrells v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. People v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. People v. MaughsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. People v. DillonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. People v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. People v. CurtisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  2. Northern Lights Motel, Inc. v. SweaneyAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
  3. People v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. In re AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Bady v. DetwilerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

20 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