Legal Opinion
People v. Diller
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 17, 1914No. Crim. No. 330PublishedCited by 17 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Defendant was convicted of the offense defined in section 367c of the Penal Code, Stats. 1911, p. 62, it being' charged that while driving an automobile a collision occurred between the one operated by him and another automobile, and that he did not stop his car, nor give the occupants of the other automobile the number of his car, his name and address, nor the name of the owner of the machine which he was driving when the collision occurred.
On appeal he attacks the validity of the statute upon the ground that it is obnoxious to section 13 of article I of the constitution, which provides that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. . RosenheimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
- Ex parte KneedlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- City of St. Joseph v. LevinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- City of St. Louis v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
3Cited by17 opinions
- Byers v. Justice Court for Ukiah Judicial DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- People v. BammesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Scott v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
- State v. MastersWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1928
- Commonwealth v. JoyceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.