Legal Opinion

Lorraine v. McComb

California Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1934No. Docket No. L.A. 14497PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

By this application for writ of mandate petitioners seek to ascertain the validity of the recent amendment to section 595 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1933, p. 1873), which, so far as here material, provides: “In all cases, the court shall postpone a trial, or the hearing of any motion or demurrer, for a period not to exceed thirty days, when all attorneys of record of parties who have appeared in the action agree in writing to such postponement. ’ ’

A certain action entitled Sarah R. Lorraine, Plaintiff, v. I. B. Doyle, Defendant, No. 347-524, begun January 18, 1933, was at issue in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brydonjack v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Riglander v. Star Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  3. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. LongSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  4. Schario v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. LongSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Briggs v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Hogya v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  3. Garrison v. RourkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. People v. CastelloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. People v. EngramCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

31 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