Legal Opinion
Cascaded v. Bortolis
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 18, 1908No. 1,442PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUNT, District Judge.
Upon the former hearing of this cause, judgment in defendant’s favor was reversed for error in the instructions. Cascaden v. Bartolis, 146 F. 739, 77 C.C.A. 496. New trial having been had, defendant again prevailed, and again plaintiffs have brought the case here.
The action was brought by John Cascaden, John Bernstein, Richard Stein, Louis K. Pratt, and Carl A. Johanson, plaintiffs in error, to recover from Joseph Bortolis, defendant in error, two certain lots in the town known as Gate City, Alaska. The complaint prayed that plaintiffs be adjudged the owners of and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Book v. Justice Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1893
- Chrisman v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1899
- Shoshone Min. Co. v. RutterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
- Lange v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ford M. Converse v. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- United States v. Standard Oil Company of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Hallenbeck v. KleppeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- Jose v. HouckCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Mandel v. Great Lakes Oil Etc. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.