Legal Opinion

Linehan v. Devincense

California Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1915No. S.F. No. 6506PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. ' Mastick & Partridge, and Alan C. Van Fleet, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This is an appeal from the order, of the court granting a new trial. The order is in the following language:

“In this action the motion for new trial herein having been heretofore submitted to the court for consideration and decision and now the court having considered the same renders its judgment as follows:
“In consequence of the failure of defendant’s attorney to present the motion it has remained on the calendar. New trial granted November 25, 1912.”

Seemingly from this order a new trial was granted for the laches of defendant’s attorney in failing to present his motion. No neglect of any…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Jackson v. TorrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Husheon v. KelleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Olson v. LovellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Swain v. BurnetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Tuller v. ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Miller v. DyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Waldeck v. HeddenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API