§
In the Matter of P

6 Cited authorities

  1. Stone v. State

    220 Ind. 165 (Ind. 1942)   Cited 14 times
    In Stone v. State, (1942), 220 Ind. 165, 41 N.E.2d 609, this court held that there must be something in a criminal statute to indicate where the line is to be drawn between trivial and substantial things so that erratic arrests and convictions for trivial acts and omissions will not occur. It cannot be left to juries, judges, and prosecutors to draw such lines.

  2. People v. Lew

    78 Cal.App.2d 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    Docket No. 2429. February 20, 1947. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Francisco County and from an order denying a new trial. Theresa Meikle, Judge. Affirmed. Walter H. Duane for Appellant. Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, David K. Lener, Deputy Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, District Attorney, and Vincent Mullins, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent. WARD, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of violating section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code

  3. United States v. Karmuth

    1 F. Supp. 370 (N.D.N.Y. 1932)   Cited 10 times

    September 1, 1932. Morris I. Lipsitz, of Buffalo, N.Y., for relator. Oliver D. Burden, U.S. Atty., of Syracuse, N.Y., for respondent. COOPER, District Judge. This is a habeas corpus proceeding on behalf of the relator, Paul Valenti, held under warrant of deportation. The relator was born in Italy December 15, 1908, and came to this country with his parents October 28, 1914, and has ever since resided with them at Buffalo, attending school in that city, at least until June 16, 1924. It is asserted

  4. In re Cooper

    15 N.E.2d 634 (Ohio 1938)   Cited 1 times

    No. 27007 Decided June 8, 1938. Statutory construction — Offenses against minors — Different statutes not deemed inconsistent or in conflict, when. Different statutes providing different penalties for offenses against minors will not be deemed inconsistent or in conflict with each other where the principal elements thereof are similar but are accompanied by varying circumstances aggravating or affecting the degree of such offenses. APPEAL from the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county. The opinion

  5. In re Cooper

    58 Ohio App. 519 (Ohio Ct. App. 1938)

    Decided February 14, 1938. Minors — Offenses against — Failure to provide — Jurisdiction — Statutory construction — Repeals by implication — Sections 12970 and 1639-46, General Code. Section 12970, General Code, a part of the Criminal Code relating to failure to provide for a child under the age of sixteen, is not inconsistent with, or repealed by, the provisions of Section 1639-46, General Code, a part of the Juvenile Court Code relating to failure to provide for a child under the age of eighteen

  6. Section 3 - Retroactivity

    Cal. Pen. Code § 3   Cited 1,334 times
    Commencing with section 2930