Legal Opinion

Wilkin v. Tadlock

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 28, 1952No. Civ. 8114PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.

Defendants have appealed from an order “postponing the date of trial of the . . . action and ordering these defendants to pay plaintiffs’ costs incurred as a result of said postponement,” and from an order denying defendants’ motion to tax costs.

The record shows that the action was set for trial on June 12, 1951. On that date one of the attorneys for defendants made a motion for postponement because of the illness of his partner, an attorney for defendants. The court thereupon rendered the following order:

“It Is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the trial of this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pomeroy v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Fraser v. FraserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Olesen v. SnyderSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  2. McFaddin v. H. S. Crocker Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Levine v. PollackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. DeCesare v. LembertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API