Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hampton v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1952No. L. A. 22086Published

1DissentSchauer, J.

I dissent.

Construed as the majority now interpret and apply our order, I think that we erred against a basic policy of law in Young v. Hampton (1951), 36 Cal.2d 799, 806 [228 P.2d 1], We erred not in reversing the judgment there appealed from but in directing the trial court to enter a different judgment as specified, and thereby, now rule the majority, foreclosing the parties from litigating new issues, issues which had never been tendered or joined, let alone adjudicated.

I would not so construe our order. It can be given full effect and still permit the joining and determination of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. Lee LookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Young v. HamptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. People v. HardissonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  4. People v. LaumanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. People v. HudsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

1 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