People v. Earle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that knowledge of contents of money bag taken from pharmacy was unnecessary to sustain conviction of theft of cash inside the bag
• holding that knowledge of contents of money bag taken from pharmacy was unnecessary to sustain conviction of theft of cash inside the bag
• holding that knowledge of contents of money bag taken from pharmacy was unnecessary to sustain conviction of theft of cash inside the bag
• \What is important here is that the defendant intended to steal the bag and its contents.... It is not necessary that he knew its contents in advance.\
• \What is important here is that the defendant intended to steal the bag and its contents.... It is not necessary that he knew its contents in advance.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Davis
  California Supreme Court· 1998-11-05· cited 129×
• UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando LOPEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
  Ninth Circuit· 1984-02-10· cited 81×
• William S. Bennett v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 1968-08-26· cited 19×
• Commonwealth v. Schraffa
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1974-03-22· cited 10×
• United States v. Bertha Ann Sellers
  Ninth Circuit· 1982-03-02· cited 8×
• Chadwell v. State
  Court of Appeals of Arkansas· 1992-01-22· cited 8×
• People v. Brady
  California Court of Appeal· 1991-09-27· cited 5×
• People v. Moneyham
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2001-07-30· cited 4×
• State v. Combariati
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1982-06-04· cited 3×
• State v. Solway
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2004-03-19· cited 3×
• Lawrence v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2012-01-27· cited 2×