Cooney v. Furlong
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco granting a new trial. Action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants were subsequently granted a new trial. The further facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. Unless such an order has been made upon some legal proposition, which may be considered in itself, a stronger-showing is required to justify this court in interfering with it than with an order refusing a new trial. (Mehan v. The C., R. I. & P. R. Co., 55 Iowa, 308.
In the order appealed from no reasons are stated why, or upon what proceeding, a new trial was granted. The record, however, shows that “the motion was heard apd submitted by the defendant upon the minutes of the court only, no statement, bill of exceptions or affidavits being…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People ex rel. Allen v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Mehan v. C., R. I. & P. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Campbell v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Thompson v. LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co. v. BolesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Gray v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- State v. NeilIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- Whitfield v. DebrincatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Sitkei v. FrimelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Sherman v. Southern Pacific Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.