Legal Opinion

Wollenshlager v. Riegel

California Supreme Court

Decided August 4, 1921No. L. A. No. 7009PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The petition of appellants for a supersedeas shows that the action in the court below was to procure an injunction to stay an execution sale. The injunction was refused. Appellants ask asupersedeas to stay the execution which they sought to have enjoined in the court below. The effect would be that this court would grant the injunction which the court below refused to grant. [1] It is well established that this court is without power to exercise original jurisdiction of this character. (Napa etc. Co. v.Calistoga etc. Co., 174 Cal. 411, [163 P. 497]; Hicks v.Michael, 15 Cal. 109.)

The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hicks v. MichaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Napa Valley Electric Co. v. Calistoga Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Clavey v. LoneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  2. McCann v. Union Bank & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Lovelock Mercantile Co. v. Lovelock Irrigation DistrictNevada Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Canavarro v. Theatre & Amusement Janitors Union Local No. 9California Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Seltzer v. Musicians' Union Local No. 6California Supreme Court · 1939

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API