Legal Opinion

Miller & Lux v. Batz

California Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1901No. L.A. No. 800PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

The judgment appealed from was affirmed in Department, June 15, 1900 (61 Pac. Rep. 935), upon the authority of Carpenter v. San Francisco Sav. Union, 128 Cal. 516. A rehearing was granted upon the representation that the question upon which the Carpenter case was decided had not been presented by the plaintiff or by the "defendant either at the trial in the court below or in the briefs here upon the appeal. In view of this fact, and of the further fact that the plaintiff states in its petition for rehearing that the reclamation of all the lands in the district was made entirely by its…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. City of San Diego v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Higby v. Calavers CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  4. People v. HulbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  5. County of Kings v. County of TulareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Williams v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Bell v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. Hilltop Properties, Inc. v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. MacDonald v. Reich & Lievre, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1929

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