Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Sheftel

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 31, 1931No. Docket No. 8172PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Claiming that the findings in the above-entitled cause are ambiguous as to certain matters of fact which are controlling in the determination of the merits of the appeal, appellants seek, by way of petition to take additional evidence (Code Civ. Proc., see. 956a, and Rule XXXVIII of the Supreme and District Courts of Appeal) and a motion for an order in diminution of the record, to have incorporated in the record on appeal, as extrinsic aids in the construction of said findings, the drafts of the proposed findings and proposed amendments and additions thereto, prepared by the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Decou v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Hiram Lodge No. 18 v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. First National Bank v. TerryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Weinstock-Nichols Co. v. CourtneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gastine v. EwingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  2. Gonzales v. County of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Sandell, Inc. v. BaileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. Howard v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. Kleinsasser v. McNamaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

1 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