Legal Opinion

Fredericksen v. Harney

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 16, 1962No. Civ. 56PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConley, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate and discharge a stop notice by virtue of which the Department of Water Resources is withholding $205,000 due to appellants for services performed for the state in the construction of the San Joaquin River Flood Control Project. The motion was made in an action for declaratory relief filed by appellants, Percy C. Fredericksen and Clinton B. Kasler, copartners, doing business under the firm name and style of Fredericksen-Kasler, pursuant to the specific authorization of section 1190.1, subdivision (c), of the Code of Civil…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Martin v. BeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Nolte v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Kidd v. LairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Bates v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Northeast Investment Co. v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
  3. Rossman Mill & Lumber Co. v. Fullerton Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. Sunlight Electric Supply Co. v. McKeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. General Electric Co. v. Central Surety & InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965

6 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