Legal Opinion

Curtis v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1886No. 11711PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Application for writ of mandate. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

It appears in this case that on the day defendant in the action entitled Wristen v. Curtis gave notice of his intention to move for a new trial, counsel for plaintiff therein extended by stipulation the time for the preparation of the statement to a day beyond the 22d of March, 1886, and on the last-named day the court in which the action was pending, on good cause being shown, but against the plaintiff’s objection, made an order extending the time twenty days from that date. *391Within the time thus extended, but more than forty days after the notice of motion was given, defendant’s counsel…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Cornell University Medical College v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  2. Reclamation District No. 535 v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Simpson v. BuddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Nord v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Howell v. PedersenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

4 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