Legal Opinion
LeCyr v. Dow
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 24, 1939No. Civ. 2103PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WARMER, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff sought by the action here involved to recover damages for slander, and in his complaint alleged that defendant stated as follows:
“ (a) That while the Santa Rosa Mines Development Company was being operated by this plaintiff, that large quantities of ore were mined therefrom and sent to smelters for reduction and refining, but that the proceeds received therefrom were retained by the plaintiff and used for his own personal benefit.
“(b) That the plaintiff operated the Santa Rosa Mine exclusively for his own use and benefit, to the utter disregard of the rights of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Tognazzi v. WilhelmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Brown v. AguilarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- More v. FingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Bank of Woodland v. HeronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Wulferdinger v. Pickwick Stages SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Meyer v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Lewis & Queen v. S. Edmondson & SonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Lambreton v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Makovsky v. MakovskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.