Legal Opinion
United States v. Clark
District Court, C.D. California
Decided June 4, 1998No. SA CR 97-99-GLT (SF)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S DISMISSAL MOTION
TAYLOR, District Judge.
The Court holds California’s unauthorized practice of law statute, Business and Professions Code § 6126, is assimilated as a federal crime on a military installation under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13(a).
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant Virginia Clark is charged with practicing law without a license while defending the military court-martial of three Marines. The government alleges a violation of California Business and Professions Code § 6126 1 , chargeable under the Assimilative Crimes Act (the “ACA”) 2 since…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. BrackerSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Parisi v. DavidsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Noyd v. BondSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Williams v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Virginia ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Alexander Chancy, Joshua Hyun, and Tyler Curington, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fossil Group, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2025
- Ambler v. Flathead Conservation DistrictDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2025