Legal Opinion
Bardwell v. Turner
California Supreme Court
Decided October 20, 1933No. Docket No. L.A. 14370PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
Defendants seek a writ of supersedeas to stay proceedings in this cause pending their appeal from an order of the court below denying their motion for change of venue from Kern to Los Angeles County (secs. 949 and 963, Code Civ. Proc.). This is a discretionary matter and the writ will issue only when justified by a showing that substantial questions will be presented upon the appeal from an order denying change of venue (McKenzie v. Los Angeles Life Ins. Co., 88 Cal. App. 259 [263 Pac. 338]).
In this cause defendants’ moving papers were sufficient in form to satisfy code requirements (sec.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Smith v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Weygandt v. LarsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Howe v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- McKenzie v. Los Angeles Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
3Cited by29 opinions
- Neet v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Goossen v. CliftonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Vaughan v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Turlock Theatre Co. v. LawsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Monogram Co. v. KingsleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.