Legal Opinion

Roehl v. the Texas Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 16, 1930No. Docket No. 265PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAINES, J., pro tem.

Defendant and appellant The Texas Company failed to appear or answer the complaint filed in the superior court by plaintiff and respondent within ten days after July 27, 1928, on which date, in an attempt to serve it with summons and complaint, copies of the same had been delivered in San Diego County, California, to one Lorden, described in the sheriff’s return as its “district managing agent.” Its default was entered accordingly on August 9, 1928, and judgment rendered against it on August 11, 1928. Thereafter on September 1, 1928, it filed its notice of motion to set…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Waybright v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Berri v. RogeroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. O'Brien v. LeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Waite v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Nicoll v. WeldonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Viles v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Brill v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Security Truck Line v. City of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Eclipse Fuel Engineering Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Riskin v. TowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944

12 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