Legal Opinion
Kearney v. Bell
California Supreme Court
Decided September 7, 1911No. S.F. No. 5209PublishedCited by 11 opinions
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing a new trial. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The appeal was originally heard and determined in the district court of appeal for the first appellate district. That court, after first reversing the order appealed from, granted a rehearing, and thereafter entered a judgment of affirmance, stating the grounds for its later action in an opinion, a copy of which is as follows:
“In this case a rehearing was granted, and upon further consideration we adopt that portion of the opinion reading as follows:—
“This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Oil Co. v. Van EttenSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Fish v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Coffee v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hendy v. MarchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Carey v. The Phila. & Cal. Petrol. Co.California Supreme Court · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal TerhuneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- People v. HorowitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Crockett Land & Cattle Co.California Court of Appeal · 1924
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Lamb Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
- Asamen v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.