Legal Opinion

County of Sonoma v. Hall

California Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1901No. S.F. Nos. 1529 and 1688PublishedCited by 39 opinions

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Sonoma County and from orders denying a new trial. S. K. Dougherty, Judge in case No. 1529. J. M. Hannon, Judge in case No. 1688. The facts are stated in the opinions.

1Opinion of the Court

In the decisions of these causes in Department, the case ofPlacer County v. Dickerson, 45 Cal. 14, was not considered. It contains a declaration contrary to the views expressed in Department, and for that reason a rehearing of the question was was ordered. After such rehearing, and full consideration of the cases relied on by the petitioner, the court adheres to the reasonings and decisions contained in the Department opinions. InPlacer County v. Dickerson, the decision upon this question is found in a single sentence. No discussion accompanies the determination, no authorities are cited, no…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. County of San Luis Obispo v. FarnumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Paige v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  3. People v. HusonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. County of San Luis Obispo v. FarnumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. People v. GardnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Regents of University of California v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Hatcher v. State of TexasTexas Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Flickinger v. Swedlow Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Breckenridge v. MasonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. City of Butte v. GoodwinMontana Supreme Court · 1913

34 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