Legal Opinion

People v. McLachlan

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 14, 1939No. Crim. A. 1599PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, P. J.

The defendant was charged with violating subdivision (a) of section 560 of the Vehicle Code and now appeals from a judgment of conviction entered against him. The code provision just mentioned reads as follows: “The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” The terms “roadway” and “crosswalk” are defined in the Vehicle Code, but no questions arise here as to their meaning, and those definitions need not be copied.

There is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Switzer v. BakerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
  2. Cowan v. Market Street Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Mitrovitch v. GravesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. Cline v. BushOregon Supreme Court · 1935

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Bishop v. PlumbMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Giles v. HappelyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. People v. FloresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Hall v. KaufmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. People v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

7 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