Legal Opinion

Cox v. Schnerr

California Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1916No. Sac. No. 2230. Department TwoPublishedCited by 83 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] Plaintiff sued to quiet title to certain property in Nevada County. Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint and the latter was answered by plaintiff as cross-defendant. A trial was had upon the issues joined, the cause having been transferred for convenience of witnesses to Sacramento County. Judgment was given in favor of the defendant and cross-complainant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Davis v. JudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Mattingly v. PennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Bias v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Murphy v. CrowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Hart v. ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by83 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of CoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Herbert v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Leeper v. BeltramiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Styne v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001

78 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