Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Earp

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1928No. Docket No. 5134PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAZLETT, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff sued to recover commissions she alleged she earned in procuring purchasers . for defendant of office spaces in a building to be erected. Judgment was given for defendant.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and her appeal is made pursuant to the alternative method provided for in sections 953a, 953b, and 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, she did not print in her briefs or in a supplement thereto sufficient of the record to indicate that the trial court committed any error in giving judgment for defendant. The only portions of the record so printed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wilbur v. WilburCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Alaska Salmon Co. v. Standard Box Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Shanklin v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Dahlberg v. DahlbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Dolan v. O'TooleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dabney v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Silverberg v. BaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Foster v. House Beautiful Homes, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API