Legal Opinion

Grotefend v. May

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 27, 1917No. Civ. No. 1634PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The following, extracted from the initial brief of the appellant, comprehends a complete and an accurate statement of the facts of the controversy presented for solution by this appeal:

“The second amended complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which, however, are founded on a single written instrument, Exhibit A, which is annexed to the pleading.
“It appears therefrom and from the allegations of the first cause of action that the Trinity Dredging and Hydraulic Gold Mining Company, to which we shall hereafter refer as ‘the corporation, ’ was an applicant before the local United States…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Waterman v. BanksSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Love v. WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Luco v. De ToroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dean v. Iowa-Des Moines National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1938
  2. Kersch v. TaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  3. Colwell v. ColwellOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Eaton v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API