Legal Opinion

In re Alberti

District Court, S.D. California

Decided September 29, 1941No. 33058-YPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYankwich, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The effect to be given to the findings of a referee, and, consequently, to those of a conciliation commissioner, was stated by Judge Wilbur in Weisstein Bros. & Survol v. Laugharn, 1936, 9 Cir., 84 F.2d 419, 420;

“Appellee contends that the case having been tried before the referee, and the referee having found that the claimant was entitled to possession of the canned fruit, that the District Court could not disturb the decision. This contention is based upon the familiar rule that where facts are litigated before the referee, and where the witnesses…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Cent. Pac. R.R. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Rasmussen v. GreslyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. CarmodyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
  2. In Re McNayDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1945
  3. In Re George & John HurtDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1955
  4. In re GotfriedDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942
  5. Sampsell v. EbbertDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1948

2 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