Legal Opinion

Nicholson v. Carrick

California Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 1922No. S. F. No. 9573PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.

The respondents move to recall the remittitur on the ground that it “does not conform to the final judgment of the court upon the ground that the judgment appealed from was in all substantial particulars affirmed. ’ ’

The appeal was taken from a decree of partial distribution of the estate of Catherine Ross, deceased. That decree was that the property distributed. was a part of the community property of John Ross, deceased, and the deceased, Catherine Ross, during their marriage, that upon his death it was distributed to her and that upon her death thereafter one-half of such community…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In re Estate of LevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. People v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Trumpler v. TrumplerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Martin v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Market Street Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Municipal Bond Co. v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  3. Southwestern Investment Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Southwestern Investment Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API