Legal Opinion

Carpenter v. Hamilton

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 10, 1936No. Civ. 10873PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHINN, J., pro tem.—Plaintiffs

sued to recover damages for alleged fraud by which they were induced to purchase certain real property. Defendant moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. A verdict was returned in plaintiffs’ favor in the sum of $2,500. Defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which also was denied. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was granted upon the grounds, among others, that the damages were excessive and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Spreckels v. GorrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Ruhl v. MottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Dow v. SwainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Oppenheimer v. ClunieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Bank of Woodland v. HiattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Hefferan v. FreebairnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Lobdell v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. Shearer v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Blackman v. HowesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

42 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