Legal Opinion

Gordon v. Pettingill

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided October 30, 1939No. 14,507PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burke

These parties appeared in reverse order in the trial court. They are hereinafter referred to as Gordon and Pettingill respectively. For convenience we elect to treat defendants in error as a single person. This in no way affects our opinion and the record discloses that it can confuse neither the parties nor the trial court. One H. E. Baumgarten is hereinafter referred to as Baumgarten.

Gordon sued Pettingill in justice court to recover $180 and had judgment. On appeal to the county court a jury was waived, the cause was tried on an agreed statement of facts and Pettingill had judgment against…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Gerard v. . McCormickNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  2. Dana v. National Bank of the RepublicMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  3. Brown v. People's National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Sigel-Campion Live Stock Commission Co. v. ArdohainSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
  5. First National Bank v. Richmond Electric Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1907

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. David K. Richards v. Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, Inc., H. Ray Christman and Platte Valley BankCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
  2. Franks v. City of AuroraSupreme Court of Colorado · 1961
  3. Computel, Inc., a Florida Corp. v. Emery Air Freight Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
  4. Mountain States Waterbed Distributors, Inc. v. O.N.C. Freight Systems Corp.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Kenneth H. Winchell v. The Moffat County State Bank, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962

4 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