Legal Opinion

Monk v. Ehret

California Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1923No. S. F. No. 10199PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

The complaint in the action before ns forms the basis of the order granting respondent’s motion for a change of the place of trial from the county in which it was commenced, to wit, the city and county of San Francisco, to the county of respondent’s (defendant) residence, Sacramento county, from which order this appeal is taken. The importance of said complaint is a sufficient justification for its reproduction at length. It follows:

“Plaintiff complaining of defendant for cause of action alleges:
“I.
“That heretofore, to wit, on the 30th day of August, 1920, in the City and County of San…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Fong v. SternesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Warner v. WarnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Davis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Kahn v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Nelson v. KelloggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Cervantez v. J. C. Penney Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  2. People v. AgnewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Coley v. HeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Collins v. OwensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  5. Richard v. RichardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

32 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