Legal Opinion

Nave v. Graham

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 22, 1918No. Civ. No. 2274PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Action for damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of slanderous statements made by the defendant Mary Graham. Judgment was for the defendants. The appeal purports to be taken both from the judgment and from an order denying to plaintiff a new trial. The appeal from the order is unauthorized by the code (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963), although all the questions sought to be presented thereunder are proper to be considered on the appeal from the judgment. It is stated in the brief of appellant that the action was brought to recover damages because of false and malicious statements made by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Oberlander v. Fixen & Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Barker Brothers v. JoosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Aronson & Co. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Curtin v. SalomonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  3. People v. ParkinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Transmarine Corp. v. R. W. Kinney Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Davidson Investment Co. v. DabneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API