Legal Opinion

Barthelmess v. Cavalier

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 28, 1934No. Civ. 8841PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YANKWICH, J., pro tem.

Under the provisions of section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is made in the alternative—reserving the right to move for a new trial in case it is denied—the subsequent granting of a motion for a new trial cannot affect the right of appeal, given specifically by subdivision 2 of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have such a situation here.

After the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff and against all the defendants except Gerald E. Arbuekle, the trial court granted the motion of appellants…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Estate of LancesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Canajoharie National Bank v. DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Zellner v. WassmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Gavin v. Protestant Episcopal BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd.District Court, S.D. California · 1945
  2. Bastanchury v. Times-Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  3. Jordan v. GuerraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Tamalpais Land & Water Co. v. Northwestern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938

17 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