Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Unger v. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Railways

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 26, 1923No. Civ. No. 4404Published

1Concurrence

ST. SURE, J., Concurring.

I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.

Lord Mansfield is said to have given this advice to a friend newly appointed to a colonial judgeship: “Never give reasons for your decision; your judgments will very probably be right, but your reasons will almost certainly be wrong.” The supreme court of this state expressed a similar thought when it said: “With the process of reasoning by which the court reached its conclusion we have nothing to do. That may have been erroneous and the ruling correct.” (Chabot v. Tucker, 39 Cal. 434; In re Kingsley, 93 Cal. 576 [29 Pac.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Davey v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Pollitz v. WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Churchill v. FlournoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Condee v. GygerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

5 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