Legal Opinion

Conner v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 5, 1935No. Civ. 9556Published

1Opinion

THE COURT.

In denying the petition for rehearing herein, it may be said that in our opinion the state of the evidence in the case is such that the refusal of the trial court to give the two instructions set out in appellant’s petition did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and consequently in no event would such refusal constitute grounds for reversal of the judgment. (Const. Cal., art. VI, sec. 4%.) Moreover, the suggestion that the refusal to give these two instructions was error is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing, and it has been repeatedly declared that a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Guggenhime & Co. v. LamantiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Pasadena Ice Co. v. ReederCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Doggett v. LaceyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Estate of EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. In Re Estate of NovotnyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

3 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