Legal Opinion

McConville v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 29, 1926No. Docket No. 5322PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

By this proceeding a writ of mandate is sought to compel the Superior Court to pass upon a motion for new trial. The facts necessary to a determination of the question involved are as follows: Luther Johnson filed suit against L. B. McConville for damages based upon alleged negligence by the agent of McConville in operating an automobile owned by the latter. The New York Indemnity Company filed a complaint in intervention; its claim was predicated upon the same facts as those alleged in the complaint of Johnson. Issue was joined upon each of these -pleadings, and the case was tried by the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Egan v. EganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. O'Brien v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Scamman v. BonslettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. First National Bank v. DusyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Byrne v. HoagCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Baxter v. BaxterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  2. Matter of Marriage of MullinaxOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Lori, Ltd. v. WolfeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. California MacHinery & Supply Co. v. University City Syndicate, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1934

10 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