Legal Opinion
Quatman v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 24, 1923No. Civ. No. 2714PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
By this proceeding petitioners seek a writ of prohibition restraining respondent, Honorable Claude F. Purkitt, from further proeeding in a certain action heretofore begun and now pending in Glenn County, entitled H. J. Barceloux, Plaintiff, v. Sacramento Valley Realty Company, a Corporation, Respondent (action No. 3454), on the alleged grounds that the respondent was at the time of the beginning of the said action and ever since has been and now is disqualified to act therein.
It appears from the petition that on or about the eleventh day of April, 1923, an action was begun by the said…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Consolidated Adjustment Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Security National Bank of Minneapolis v. PulverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Adams v. MinorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Aronson v. NurenbergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Evans v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Hall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Briggs v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Moody v. ShuffletonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Chaplin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.