Legal Opinion

Austin v. Lambert

California Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1938No. S. F. 15931PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding in mandamus to compel the respondent judge of the superior court to proceed with the hearing and determination of an action pending before said court entitled John W. Austin et al. v. Hallmark Oil Company et al. The cause had been duly assigned to the respondent judge for hearing and determination. Certain issues of law were noticed for hearing on October 1, 1937. Prior to 10 o’clock A. M. on that day counsel for certain defendants in said action served upon counsel for the plaintiffs therein and filed with the clerk of the court a notice that the named…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Ex parte N. K. Fairbank Co.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 1912
  3. Daigh v. ShafferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Solberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning & Zoning CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1964
  3. People v. SweeneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  4. State v. HolmesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Buckley v. ChadwickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955

41 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