Marks v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction. Matt F. Johnson, Judge. .The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
BELCHER, C.
Upon filing the complaint in this case a preliminary injunction was issued, restraining the defendant from placing or maintaining on the sidewalk of a street in the city of Sacramento a certain obstruction, alleged to have been placed and kept there by defendant maliciously and to the prejudice and ■damage of the plaintiff. The complaint was duly verified - and *54stated facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded.
Without filing any answer, the defendant moved the court to dissolve the injunction upon several grounds. After a hearing the motion was denied, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- White v. NunanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Patterson v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Parrott v. FloydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Grannis v. LordenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kendall v. FoulksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Porters Bar Dredging Co. v. BeaudryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Schwartz v. ArataCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Sand ex rel. All other Taxpayers of Scott School District No. 12 v. PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Christopher v. CondogeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.