Reclamation District No. 535 v. Hamilton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County refusing to settle a statement on motion for new trial, and dismissing the motion. Matt. F. Johnson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Haynes, C.
Appeal from an order refusing to settle defendant’s statement on motion for a new trial, a»d dismissing said motion.
*606After the service of defendant’s proposed statement the plaintiff, upon due notice, moved the court to refuse to settle the same, and to' dismiss defendant’s motion for a new trial, and to deny the same upon the following grounds: “1. That it is a mere skeleton statement, and does not substantially conform to the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure; 2. That the same was not served within the time allowed by law, nor within the time to which the court had…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Smith v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Story v. ElliotCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1827
- People v. . StephensNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Patterson & Frisbie v. ElyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- State v. California Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1878
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Churchill v. FlournoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Bowden v. GreenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Redsted v. WeissCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- People v. HeacockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- State v. TurlokMontana Supreme Court · 1926
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.