Wolf v. Gall
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Supersedeas. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
Pending an appeal from the judgment in the above-entitled cause, the superior court undertook to punish Arturo Wolf, one of the plaintiffs, and his attorneys, Messrs. George Lezinsky and Theodore A. Bell, for contempt of court. The alleged contempt consisted of the institution of a new action, in violation of the terms of an injunction embodied in the judgment from which the appeal had been taken. The present proceeding is an order, issued on the application of Arturo Wolf, to show cause why a writ of supersedeas should not issue to prevent the enforcement of said judgment.
The action of Wolf…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Curtis v. SutterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Dulin v. Pacific Wood & Coal Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Merced Mining Co. v. FremontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Angus v. CravenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Foster v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Dillon v. Board of Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Stearns v. Los Angeles City School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Ohaver v. FenechCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Feinberg v. One Doe Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Santoro v. CarboneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.