Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Hartnett

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 11, 1934No. Docket No. 8784PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Motion for diminution of record. Respondents herein have made a motion for diminution of record by incorporating in and making part of the transcript on appeal an order amending nunc pro tunc an order granting a motion for a new trial. The order amending the record was made under the following circumstances: An appeal was taken by contestants from an order granting a motion for a new trial of the contest of the probate of the will of deceased. The contest was tried before a jury in February, 1930, nearly four years ago, which resulted in a verdict in favor of contestants, the jury finding the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Dixon v. HartnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Boyer v. BoyerWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Poole v. OliverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  5. Podesta v. DeluchiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dixon v. EckenrothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  2. Carson v. Emmons Draying & Safe Moving Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Courtell v. McEachenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API