Legal Opinion
Ray v. Clark
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 27, 1922No. Civ. No. 3819PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JAMES, j.
The defendant asked to have certain items, appearing in a memorandum of costs which the plaintiff filed, disallowed. The court denied the motion. Defendant has appealed from the order.
After notice of decision and within the time required by section 1033 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff, in the court below, filed his memorandum of costs. In this memorandum various items appeared as for fees of witnesses who were seven in number, such fees including the per diem fixed by the statute, together with the mileage charge which is allowed to be collected. It included notary…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miller v. Highland Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Barnhart v. KronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Linforth v. San Francisco Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
3Cited by6 opinions
- Murphy v. F. D. Cornell Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Ceranski v. MuenschCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Haydel v. MortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- California Interstate Telephone Co. v. PrescottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- City of Downey v. GonzalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.