Legal Opinion

Noack v. Zellerbach

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 22, 1936No. Civ. No. 9718PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.

The plaintiff, Charles F. Noaek, moves to recall the remittitur issued in the above-entitled cause and to “amend and correct” the judgment on appeal which is embodied in the concluding paragraph of the court’s opinion, upon the ground that the judgment on appeal does not conform to the rulings of the court as expressed in its opinion. (Noack v. Zellerbach et al., 11 Cal. App. (2d) 186 [53 Pac. (2d) 986].)

The complaint in the action contained two counts. The first was for the recovery of the value of fish confiscated by two deputy fish and game commissioners. The second was for loss of profits…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Central Savings Bank of Oakland v. LakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Wrynn v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Monson v. FischerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Ferran v. MulcrevyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Quigley v. NashCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Valentine v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  2. Beavers v. Allstate InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  3. Chin Ott Wong v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  4. Marriage of MacDonald CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API