Goldman v. Dahlberg
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents in the sum of $400 for legal services. The case was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict for $750, which amount was subsequently reduced with the consent of respondents as a condition to the denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial.
Appellant urges three grounds upon which the judgment should be reversed: First, under the facts plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery; second, the court erred in refusing to” give certain instructions requested by defendant, and, third; the court erred in giving certain…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Harris v. BarnhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Winterburn v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Weissich v. BehrensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Meads, Seaman & Co. v. LasarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Churchill v. MoreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Johnstone v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Jones v. WickstromCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Barrington v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Podesta v. DelucchiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- People v. DuenasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946