Philbrook v. Newman
California Supreme Court
MOTION to vacate a judgment of the Supreme Court, the decision upon which is reported in 114 Cal. 635, [46 Pae. 742], The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The above-entitled action was begun in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco in the name of Ira P. Rankin, who was the plaintiff’s predecessor as administrator of the Levinson estate. Judgment was given by said court in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff moved the said court for a new trial of the action, and the motion was denied. From the order denying the motion the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. Upon that appeal the supreme court affirmed the order. denying a new trial, the decision being rendered on November 5, 1896. (Rankin v. Newman, 114 Cal. 635, [46…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Case v. BeauregardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- In re the Estate of JessupCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Leese v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- People ex rel. Bryant v. HolladayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Lewis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Amwest Surety Insurance v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- People v. BrighamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Metropolitan Water District v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Wehle v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.