Legal Opinion

Gruben v. Leebrick & Fisher, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 30, 1938No. Civ. A. 4120PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

This case was tried before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that “1. That the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision and that the decision is against the law;

“2. Errors in law occurring at the trial.”

Upon such motion the trial court ordered “that a new trial be and hereby is granted on the defendant’s motion” without further specification of grounds therefor. Examination of the record before us discloses that there was a substantial conflict in the evidence before the trial court and therefore such…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Kent v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Newman v. Overland Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Springer v. Pacific Fruit ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Bureau of Welfare, California Teachers' Ass'n v. DrapeauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Cox v. Tyrone Power Enterprises Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Ellis v. KlaffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Bayley v. SouzaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. Dickey v. Raisin Proration Zone No. 1California Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Bayley v. SouzaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

5 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