Crouchman v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
No appearance for Respondent and for Real Party in Interest.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LUCAS, C. J.
We granted review to decide whether a defendant in a small claims action at law for money damages has a right to a jury trial in the de novo proceeding in superior court when he appeals from the small claims court judgment. We conclude the Court of Appeal correctly held that the appealing defendant has no right to trial by jury.
I. Facts
Real party in interest, 2 defendant’s former landlord, sued in small claims court for money due on the rental contract between it and defendant, and for damages for injury to the property rented to defendant. Possession of the property was…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. BombolisSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Walker v. SauvinetSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Cornette v. Department of TransportationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Cheung v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada ex rel. County of ClarkNevada Supreme Court · 2005
- Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.