Legal Opinion
People v. Fitzgerald
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 19, 1936No. Crim. 1463PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TUTTLE, J., pro tem.
Appellants were found guilty by a jury of malicious and reckless possession of dynamite as that crime is defined in section 6, Act 2433, General Laws of California. They now appeal from the judgment, order denying motion for new trial, and order denying motion in arrest of judgment.
No appeal lies from an order denying a motion in arrest of judgment, and such appeal will therefore be dismissed. (People v. Bundy, 168 Cal. 777 [145 Pac. 537].)
The facts, as disclosed by the evidence produced by the prosecution, and also certain undisputed facts, are stated in the following…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. TurnipseedSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Yee Hem v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Smellie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Manley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- People v. PeeteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- People v. GriffinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- People v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- People v. WeissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- People v. KrupaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.