Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kahn v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1943No. L. A. 18341Published

1Dissent

EDMONDS, J., Dissenting.

To me, the conclusion reached by my associates is directly contrary to the fundamental rule that where the trial court has affirmatively acted upon a motion for a new trial, the limitations upon the exercise of such jurisdiction will be construed, wherever possible, so as to sustain the action as a proper exercise of its jurisdiction. (Spier v. Lang, 4 Cal.2d 711, 714, 715 [53 P.2d 138]; Pappadatos v. Superior Court, 209 Cal. 334 [287 P. 342]; Holland v. Superior Court, 121 Cal.App. 523, 531 [9 P.2d 531].) Certainly the settlement of disputed issues in the trial court…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Spier v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Gore v. BingamanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Clary v. HoaglandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
  5. Gonzales v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935

22 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