Legal Opinion

Fetterley v. Randall

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1928No. Docket No. 5156PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEPHENS, J., pro tem.

The parties to this cause are Oliver Fetterley, plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent; Helen M. Randall, defendant, cross-defendant and appellant, and First Savings Bank of Vallejo, California, defendant and cross-complainant. On the 13'th of March, 1922, and after a proceeding authorized by sections 2168, 2169 and 2170 of the Political Code, viz., a hearing before a superior judge with two physicians present, sometimes referred to as the lunacy commission, respondent was ordered committed to the state hospital for the insane. Before his trial thereon before a court…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. People v. WillardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Kellogg v. CochranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. People v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Ripperdan v. WeldyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Hsu v. Mt. Zion HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Moneta v. HoinackiIllinois Supreme Court · 1946
  3. In Re ZanettiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Carroll v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  5. People v. FieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

9 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