Legal Opinion

Eckstrand v. Wilshusen

California Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1933No. Docket No. Sac. 4604PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying her motion for a change of place of trial.

The action was commenced in the county of Humboldt. In due time the defendant appeared, filed a demurrer and moved to transfer the cause to the city and county of San Francisco on the ground that she was a resident of said city and county. The motion was denied. The question is whether the action on the record presented is local or transitory.

It is conceded that the real property, described in the complaint herein, is situated in Humboldt County and that the residence of the defendant is in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. Royal Consolidated Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Grocers' Fruit Growing Union v. Kern Cty. Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. McFarland v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Sheeley v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Booker v. AitkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Peiser v. MettlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Neet v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Vaughan v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Kaluzok v. BrissonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Howe v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933

28 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