Legal Opinion
O'CONNELL v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 2, 1927No. 4965PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The appellant, in view of the fact that his individual claim ^gainst the gas and electric company in any separate proceeding is barred by the statute of lirbitations, contends that the intervention here sought is his only remedy to recover the money taken from him by the gas and electric company, and that be has an absolute right to intervene. The ■ground of that right, as alleged in his petition, is in substance that the attorneys for the city and county of San Francisco have unwarrantably delayed the prosecution of the cases, and are now proposing to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ex Parte CuttingSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- In Re Engelhard & Sons Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Oakman v. City of EvelethSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- City of New York v. New York Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State of Washington v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Berman v. Denver Tramway Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
- Whittaker v. Brictson Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- Board of Drainage Com'rs of Pender County Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Lafayette Southside Bank of St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928
- Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1Arizona Supreme Court · 1966
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.