Kataoka v. May Department Stores Co.
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the CourtYankwich, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The question presented by the motion is interesting. It is novel also, because the high courts of California have not been called upon to determine it. So, if there were a conflict between decisions elsewhere, we might,—even in the absence of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 1937, 302 U. S. 671, 58 S.Ct. 50, 82 L.Ed. 518,—choose to follow one group of decisions rather than the other,—following the one that appeals more to our sense of justice and right. See, Burgess v. Seligman, 1882, 107 U.S. 20, 2 S.Ct. 10, 27 L.Ed. 359; Railroad Commission v. Los Angeles Ry. Co.,…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. BrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Peters v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Risty v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Scott v. San Bernardino Valley Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Strahorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1956
- Associated Press v. EmmettDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942
- Browne v. Rosenfield's, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1949
- Warren v. HainesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Anheuser-Busch v. Caught-on-BleuDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.