Legal Opinion

Bogardus v. O'Dea

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 12, 1930No. Docket No. 6274PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURNELL, J., pro tem.

The appeal is taken upon the judgment-roll, which discloses the record to be as follows: The original complaint named as defendants H. S. McLaughlin and H. Sydney McLaughlin in addition to O ’Dea, who is the respondent here. It is alleged that in June, 1924, O ’Dea, through his attorney H. S. McLaughlin, had filed a complaint seeking recovery of money claimed to be due on the rental of certain real property; that the return on the summons showed personal service thereof by H. Sidney McLaughlin and that thereafter judgment by default was entered against the appellant on…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Parsons v. WeisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Chetwood v. California National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Board of Commissioners (No. 2) v. YoungerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert InnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Pellett v. Sonotone Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Bee v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Charleville v. Metropolitan Trust Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Jenkins v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1937

6 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