Chichester v. Golden
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
YANKWICH, District Judge.
The above entitled cause heretofore tried, argued and submitted is now decided as follows:
Upon the grounds stated in the Comment to follow judgment will be for the plaintiff as follows:
1. That plaintiff do have and recover of the defendants Howard Golden, Lucille Golden and Ruth S. Feldhorn only, the sum of $23,611.86 with interest from date of judgment.
2. That no exemplary damages in any amount be awarded against the above-named or any of the other defendants.
3. That plaintiff take nothing against the defendants Michael Golden, Stephen Golden, Judy Lynne Golden, a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Sampsell v. Imperial Paper & Color Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Smellie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- Shapiro v. WilgusSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Fish v. EastCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mack v. NewtonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
- Gross v. Russo (In Re Russo)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 1982
- Hutchison v. BoneyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963
- Egan v. Oliver (In Re Oliver)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 1984
- Chichester v. GoldenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.