Legal Opinion

Kim v. Chinn

California Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1942No. S. F. 16697PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarter, J.

Defendant Chinn, petitioner herein, has applied for a writ of supersedeas to stay the execution of a judgment against him pending an appeal therefrom. The judgment was entered in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County on April 18, 1941, for the sum of $8,500 and costs. A motion for a new trial was denied on June 12, 1941. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on July 10, 1941.

In all of the above-mentioned proceedings petitioner was represented by his counsel of record, Mr. Stanford G. Smith, who then advised petitioner that he desired to withdraw from the ease and refused to take any further…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hill v. FinniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Nonpareil Manufacturing Co. v. McCartneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Segarini v. BargagliottiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Rosenfeld v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Tompkins v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Milne v. GoldsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  2. Powell v. City of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Back v. HookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Isaak v. EvidonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  5. Dowling v. FedeleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

2 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