Legal Opinion
Ukropina-Polich-Kral v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 10, 1960No. Civ. No. 10039PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeek, J.
By prohibition, petitioners seek to prevent the Superior Court of Butte County from taking further proceedings in a civil action brought by the real party in interest, respondent Seger, against the defendants Ukropina-Polich-Kral and W. H. Darrough & Sons, a joint venture, and Maryland Casualty Company, its surety, the petitioners herein.
The facts, as disclosed by the petition, indicate that the *300joint venture entered into a contract with the United States government to perform certain reclamation work in Butte County. As required by title 40 U.S.C.A., § 270a et seq. (formerly known as the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. Robert E. Denike, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937
- Western Casualty and Surety Company v. Eusebius J. BiggsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1954
- Voelz v. Milgram Contracting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Hot Springs Concrete Co. v. RosamondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
3Cited by4 opinions
- American Creosote Works, Inc. v. Caltoman Contractors, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1964
- United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Division, Department of Revenue & TaxationWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
- United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Division, Department of Revenue & TaxationWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
- Wills Equipment Co. v. Goldman Enterprises, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County1980