Legal Opinion
Castro v. Malcolm
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 19, 1924No. Civ. No. 2700PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
On the thirteenth day of June, 1916, an agreement was entered into between the county of Kern, acting through its board of supervisors, as the party of the first part, and the Coast Construction Company, a partnership consisting of Stephen V. R. Malcolm and others, as party of the second part, for the construction and improvement of 7.56 miles of that certain highway in the county of Kern known as and called the McKittrick-Marieopa road, for the estimated sum of $44,766.15, to which was thereafter added, as extras, the sum of $1,017.42. At the same time, and as a part of the same transaction,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Prairie State Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- First Nat. Bank of Seattle v. City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1902
- Wasco Co. v. New England Equitable Ins.Oregon Supreme Court · 1918
- American Bonding Co. of Baltimore v. Central Trust Co. of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1917
- Adamson v. PaonessaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- California Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. OAK GROVE UNION SCH. DIST. OF SONOMA CTY.California Court of Appeal · 1962
- Fairbanks v. Crump Irrigation & Supply Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Street v. Pacific Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935