Legal Opinion

Hutchason v. Marks

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 11, 1943No. Civ. No. 13759PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J. pro tem.

In Slemons v. Paterson, (1939) 14 Cal.2d 612 [96 P.2d 125], the Supreme Court reversed an order granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence (which was, that the Patersons had been absent from the state), and in doing so made these observations which are particularly pertinent to this case (pp. 615, 616) : “The only reason stated in plaintiffs’ affidavit for failing to discover and produce this evidence upon the trial, is that they did not know that the Patersons had been absent from the state during said period, and that prior to the time that they…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Hutchason v. MarksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Klockenbaum v. PiersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  4. Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. BowieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Edwards v. FloydCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API