Legal Opinion

McClung v. Watt

California Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1922No. S. F. No. 10019PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.

This is an appeal from 'an order denying the motion of the individual defendant, Watt, for a change of venue. The city and county of San Francisco is the principal place of business of the corporation defendant and the action was instituted there. Defendant Watt’s residence is in the city of Sacramento. He demanded a change of place of trial from said city and county of San Francisco to the county of Sacramento upon two grounds: (1) that his residence was in Sacramento, and (2) that the corporation defendant was joined as a defendant solely for the purpose of having the action tried in the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Brady v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Bradner v. . FaulknerNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
  3. Law v. GrantWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Donohoe v. WoosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Griffin & Skelly Co. v. Magnolia & Healdsburg Fruit Cannery Co.California Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Hale v. BohannonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Peiser v. MettlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Johnson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Freeman v. DowlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Johnson v. ClarkMontana Supreme Court · 1957

45 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