Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Osborn v. Osborn

California Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1954No. L. A. 22540Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CARTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the reversal of that portion of the judgment from which plaintiff appealed, which reads as follows: “That plaintiff take nothing by reason of his amended complaint herein and that defendant Louise L. Osborn have judgment for costs of court expended in the sum of $-,” but I dissent from the holding of the majority that the judgment against defendant *368and cross-complainant from which no appeal was taken must also be reversed. That portion of the judgment reads as follows: ‘ ‘ That cross-complainant take nothing by reason of her cross-complaint…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hamasaki v. FlothoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. In re the Estate of BurdickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Whalen v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Harrelson v. Miller & Lux Inc.California Supreme Court · 1920

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