Legal Opinion

Lamb v. Schottler

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880No. 6,944PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In bank, Sharpstein, J.:

A motion to quash the writ of certiorari issued in this case has been argued and submitted. It is based on several grounds, one of which is that the petition for the writ is multifarious. *320That it is, does not admit of argument. But that objection is addressed wholly to our discretion, and in the exercise of it in this case, we have concluded not to grant the motion on that ground. If mam pleaders would give more heed to the requirement of the Code, that “ the complaint must contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Fountain v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Supreme Court · 1848
  2. Fox v. Western Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1867
  3. San Mateo Waterworks v. SharpsteinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Williams v. County CommissionersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1853
  5. Tivey v. People ex rel. Townsend NorthMichigan Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. People v. Bank of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Moss v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
  4. Lewis v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Manion v. Louisville, St. Louis & Texas R. Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890

16 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