Legal Opinion
In Re Tung Fong
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 26, 1922No. Crim. No. 664PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
June 5, 1922, in the police court of the city of Sacramento, in ease No. 1227, the petitioner was adjudged guilty of having had a preparation of morphine in his possession on the first day of June, 1922, contrary to the provisions of the act of 1907, and amendments thereto, regulating the sale and use of poisons. (Stats. 1907, p. 124.) Thereafter on the same day, in case No. 1228, he was adjudged guilty of having had a preparation of cocaine in his possession on the first day of June, 1922, contrary to the provisions of the act. After both convictions he was sentenced under the first charge…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kinney v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Hyser v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Muckenfuss v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909
- State v. SavageWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1920
- People v. BergmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. JonesWashington Supreme Court · 1926
- People v. DiazCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- People v. RoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923