Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Baird v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 28, 1937No. Civ. 5683PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

The plaintiff has appealed from an order denying his motion for a change of the place of trial to the city and county of San Francisco for the convenience of witnesses and to meet the ends of justice pursuant to section 397, subdivision 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is claimed the denial of the motion constitutes an abuse of discretion.

A suit in assumpsit was brought in the Municipal Court of San Francisco upon the assigned claim of Dr. Howard C. Naffziger of that city for the sum of $1250 as the reason able value of medical and surgical services performed by him upon the husband of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wrin v. OhlandtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Kellett v. KellettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Scott v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Higgins v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Birch v. PhelanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Crofts & Anderson v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. Juneau v. JuneauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Edwards v. PiersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Flanagan v. FlanaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. J. C. Millett Co. v. Latchford-Marble Glass Co.California Court of Appeal · 1959

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API