Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Riecks

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 18, 1919No. Civ. No. 1948PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The appeal is by defendant, Lulu Mignon Murphy, from a judgment, entered in the superior court of the county of San Joaquin, restraining defendants from selling, by virtue of a certain writ of execution, at sheriff’s sale or otherwise, certain real property of plaintiff.

The defendant, Riecks, as sheriff, filed an answer and disclaimer and upon the trial was permitted to withdraw from the case. The real parties to the action, therefore, are the plaintiff and Lulu Mignon Murphy, who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant and appellant.

Prior to the thirteenth day of October, 1908, S.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pixley v. HugginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Porter v. PicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Shattuck v. CarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
  4. Porter v. JenningsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Culver v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Little Horn State Bank v. GrossMontana Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Groth v. NessNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Murphy v. KendallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Avila v. Rue 21, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2020
  5. Mastronardi International Limited v. SunSelect Produce (California), Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2019

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