Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Hartnett

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 28, 1931No. Docket No. 7893PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This is an appeal by the contestants of decedent’s will from a judgment in favor of the proponents, rendered by the court notwithstanding a verdict of a jury finding that the will was procured by undue influence.

Section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing the rendition of a judgment non obstante veredicto, reads as follows: “When a motion for a directed verdict, which should have been granted, has been denied and a verdict rendered against the moving party, the court, at any time before the entry of judgment, either of its own motion or on motion of the aggrieved party,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hunt v. United Bank & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Estate of CasparCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Card v. BomsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Newson v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Estate of YaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Howard v. Owens CorningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  2. Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co.California Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Dixon v. EckenrothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Estate of CaldwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Wells v. Lloyd IVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

12 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