San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stevinson
California Supreme Court
MOTION for the recall of a Remittitur and to strike therefrom a direction that the appellant recover costs on appeal. . The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The opinion reversing the judgment on which the remittitur issued is reported in 164 Cal. 221, [128 Pac. 924].
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
The San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Company was plaintiff in a condemnation suit in which petitioner J ames J. Stevinson and others were defendants. The superior court, at the conclusion of the testimony offered by plaintiff granted a motion for nonsuit by defendants, and gave judgment accordingly. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, the opinion which was filed concluding with the words “The judgment is reversed.” In preparing the remittitur, the clerk of this court, following our rule XXIII, [160 Cal. liii, 119 Pac. xiii], added to the quoted words, “Appellant to recover costs…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- City of San Francisco v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Mathews v. DroudIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Baker v. Southern California Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by24 opinions
- In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Heimann v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Locklin v. City of LafayetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Collier v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.