Legal Opinion

Petroff v. Nunes

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 26, 1934No. Docket No. 4986PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

The plaintiffs have presented this alternative motion, under the provisions of Bule V, section 3, of the Buies for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, to dismiss the appeal or affirm the order granting a new trial after judgment had been rendered pursuant to the verdict of a jury which was returned in favor of the defendant. The motion is made on the ground that the appeal was taken for the purpose of delay only, and that it presents no substantial issue of merit.

The above-entitled actions were consolidated for trial. They are suits for personal injuries sustained in an…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Newman v. Overland Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Power v. FairbanksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Thomas & Co. v. HillisWashington Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Petroff v. NunesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. McHan v. McHanIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Perry v. FowlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. In Re the Estate of RandallIdaho Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Lucerne Country Club v. BealCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Porter v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

8 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