Legal Opinion
Rains v. Diamond Match Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided November 13, 1915No. Sac. No. 2235PublishedCited by 15 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to' change the place of trial.
The action is one to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant. The alleged cause of action arose in Butte County. The defendant is a foreign corporation doing busi ness in this state. The action was commenced in the county of Sacramento, and the defendant demanded that it he removed for trial to the county of Butte.
The appellant contends that it had a right to the transfer under section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1911.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thomas v. Placerville Gold Quartz Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Gridley v. FellowsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hale v. BohannonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- San Jose Hospital v. EthertonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Mansfield v. Pickwick StagesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Ryan v. Inyo Cerro Gordo Mining & Power Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Hobson v. Metropolitan Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.