Legal Opinion

Finch v. Ekstrom

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 8, 1931No. Docket No. 6664PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

This appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit entered in an action to recover an attorney’s fee for services rendered with relation to an industrial accident award, the amount sought being in addition to that found reasonable by the commission. From the reporter’s transcript we note that at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case on August 31, 1928, defendant moved for a nonsuit, to which the trial judge responded, after the motion had been argued: “It is the order of the Court that the motion be granted.” In the clerk’s transcript we find this order, entered in the minutes of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Henry v. LingsweilerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  2. Lewis v. Hammond Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Bengel v. TraegerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Burks v. BronsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. McColgan v. Jones, Hubbard & Donnell, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Scrimsher v. Reliance Rock Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
  3. Cullen v. SpremoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. Fisch & Co., Ltd. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Bunt v. RobertsIdaho Supreme Court · 1955

7 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