Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bollinger v. National Fire Insurance

California Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1944No. S. F. 16780Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchauer, J.

Concurring and Dissenting.—I concur in the judgment but reach my conclusion upon a different ground and dissent from certain propositions declared in the majority opinion as hereinafter indicated. That opinion, in effect, reviews the judgment which was rendered in the municipal court in the preceding action. I agree with the majority statement by Mr. Justice Traynor that, upon the facts as pleaded here, it appears that in the municipal court action “defendant’s motion for nonsuit should have been denied. ’ ’ But concluding that the municipal court erred at that time in that action is…

2Cases cited78 opinions

  1. Baugh v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Hamilton v. Royal Insurance Co. of Liverpool, EnglandNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  3. Brown v. FerdonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Insurance Cos. v. ScalesTennessee Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Fageol Truck & Coach Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1941

73 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