Legal Opinion

Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Southern Pacific Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1923No. L. A. No. 6890. L. A. No. 6891. L. A. No. 6892PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.

A rehearing of the three above-entitled causes after decision by this court, sitting in Bank, in one of said causes (L. A. No. 6890), was granted primarily because, in the petitions for rehearing, it was insisted that the opinion, delivered in the first instance by Mr. Justice Bichards, of the first district court of appeal, sitting in this court pro tern., failed to definitely deal with and directly dispose of appellants’ contention that certain instructions were erroneous and grievously prejudicial in this that they permitted the jury to find that a new natural water course might in certain…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Horton v. GoodenoughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. The Weinberg Co. v. BixbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Hale Bros. v. MillikenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  4. Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. LercheCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1920

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Smith v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  2. Poncino v. Sierra Nevada Life & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  3. Mogle v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Weck v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  5. Costello v. BowenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

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