Legal Opinion

Goetten v. Owl Drug Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1936No. L. A. 15624PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Upon further consideration, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached and the views expressed in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, written by Fricke, J., pro tempore, are correct and we therefore adopt that opinion as the decision of this court. It is as follows:

“Appeal by defendants Owl Drug Company and its manager, R. Thomasen, from an order granting a motion for new trial.
“On November 18, 1933, respondent Hattie G. Goetten and her husband, John P. Goetten, went into appellants’ place of business and ordered some chow mein at…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  2. Gindraux v. Maurice Mercantile Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Loucks v. MorleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. City & County of San Francisco v. LarsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
  2. Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  3. People v. HurdCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Vogel v. Thrifty Drug Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  5. H.S. Crocker Co., Inc. v. McFaddinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

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

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

Powered by the Exa API