Legal Opinion

Kohlstedt v. Hauseur

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 14, 1937No. Civ. 11588PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrail, P. J.

After devoting a week to the trial of the case, the trial court on October 24, 1934, signed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first conclusion of law was that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendant Hauseur, and the second, “That plaintiff is not entitled to any judgment as against any other defendant herein.” Pursuant to said findings and conclusions, judgment was entered against the defendant Hauseur only and in favor of the other defendants, including Gold. Gold had appeared in the action and filed his answer, but neither he nor his attorney took part in the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Crim v. KessingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Norton v. City of PomonaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Kaufman v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Robson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Hamasaki v. FlothoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Whitley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Burnett v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Carpenter v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Lámar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

17 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