Conde v. Sweeney
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order denying a new trial. G. W. Nieol, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in the opinion upon the former appeal, 14 Cal. App. 20.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
There have been two appeals in this case— the first, from an order “granting plaintiffs an injunction pendente lite as prayed for in the complaint,” and the present appeal from the judgment awarding a permanent injunction and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
In the decision on the former appeal (14 Cal. App. 20, [110 Pac. 973]) may be found a full statement of the facts, and it is deemed unnecessary to repeat them here. On said appeal, it may be said, also, two questions discussed herein by appellant were decided adversely to his contention, and as to them the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miller v. WaddinghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Pomeroy v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Conde v. SweeneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
3Cited by10 opinions
- 14859 Moorpark Homeowner's Assn. v. Vrt Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Hastings v. MatlockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Moorpark Homeowners Assn. v. Vrt Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Southern Pacific Land Co. v. KigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Brush v. E. R. Bohan & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.