Legal Opinion
Woods v. Berry
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 4, 1930No. Docket No. 3843PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON (R. L.), J.
This is a motion on the part of respondents to affirm an order denying defendants’ application for a change of venue.
The complaint was brought against the principal and sureties on an indemnity bond for the value of labor performed and materials furnished by the plaintiffs pursuant to a contract for the repairing of a hotel building at Red-ding. The defendants filed a motion for change of venue based upon an asserted residence in San Francisco. The plaintiffs filed a counter-motion to retain the action for trial in the county of Shasta. Affidavits and counter-affidavits…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cook v. PendergastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Martin v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Pierce v. WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Wong Fung Hing v. San Francisco Relief & Red Cross FundsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Dawson v. DawsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Beatty v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1935
- Quick v. CorsaroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Kiku Saito v. Policy Holders L. Ins. Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1933
- Sowers v. SowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Woods v. BerryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.