People v. Lamb
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
PLUMMER. J.
The defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of violating wfiiat is commonly known as the Wright Act of the state of California. His motion for a new trial being denied, the defendant appeals therefrom and also from the judgment of conviction. It appears from the transcript that three separate and distinct informations were filed against the defendant charging him with three separate and distinct violations of the act above mentioned. The informations were numbered respectively 8056, 8060 and 8083. By stipulation made in open court when the eases were called for trial, all…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In Re FrankovitchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. GidneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- People v. MaloneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- People v. MattosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- People v. GaytanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Hall v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.