Legal Opinion · Dissent

Golden State Glass Corp. v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1939No. S. F. 16071Published

1Dissent

SHENK, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

In the first place, the opinion has invaded the domain of the trial court.

Contrary to the rule, the evidence favorable to the defendants in the trial court has been given controlling effect as against the decision of the court based on substantial evidence favorable to the plaintiffs in the pending action.

The ex parte character of the order appointing the receiver became of no significance, in view of the later hearing on the motion to vacate the order, at which all parties interested in the corporation, either as shareholders or directors, were present and…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Havemeyer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Doak v. BrusonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. A. G. Col Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Agassiz v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Sunset Farms, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

5 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