Legal Opinion

People v. Cruse

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1914No. Crim. No. 312PublishedCited by 14 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Appeal from a judgment following conviction on the charge that appellant did cause and contribute to the dependent state of a girl eighteen years of age. The judgment provided as follows: “No cause having been shown why judgment should not be entered, you, Samuel Cruse, should be and are now fined by this court in the amount of five hundred dollars, and in case said fine is not paid, you shall be confined in the county jail of Los Angeles County for the term of six months.” No complaint is made as to the sufficiency of this judgment in form.

The information charged that on the fifteenth day of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. People v. WilmotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. People v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. People v. PierroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. People v. CarmeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
  2. People v. HidalgoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. People v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  4. State v. GauntSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  5. People v. FosterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

9 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