Legal Opinion

Barnes v. Cahill

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 25, 1943No. Civ. 13691PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J. pro tem.

The plaintiffs have appealed from a part of the judgment in an action brought by them to obtain an injunction.

The respondent has filed no brief and made no argument. That being so, we are not required to engage in legal research or critical examination of the record to find an answer to appellants’ arguments. We have, however, considered the record, in connection with the points made, and conclude that a reversal must be ordered.

In the amended complaint on which the case was tried plaintiffs set up two causes of action. The first alleged that plaintiffs were engaged in the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hollywood Motion Picture Equipment Co. v. FurerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Guggenhime & Co. v. LamantiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Pasadena Ice Co. v. ReederCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Modesto Creamery v. Stanislaus Creamery Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc. v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd.District Court, S.D. California · 1945
  2. Hair v. McGuireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. P. P. Williams Company v. Colorado Milling and Elevator CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
  4. HMH Publishing Co. v. HaleDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1957
  5. Ferroline Corp. v. General AniLine & Film Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1953

3 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