Legal Opinion

Holmes v. Hatch

California Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1938No. S. F. 15674; S. F. 15736PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

We are here confronted with consolidated cross-appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant Hatch in the sum of $15,000. In the briefs filed in support of their judgment roll appeal the plaintiffs request that we direct the trial court to enter judgment for the full amount of $21,100 prayed for in the complaint, while the defendant upon liis appeal, prosecuted under the alternative method, seeks a reversal of the judgment as entered. In passing, it should be stated that the cause was tried as to the defendant Hatch alone and we need not now…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Doudell v. ShooCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. City of Los Angeles v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Wadleigh v. PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Western Oil & Refining Co. v. Venago Oil Corp.California Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Bone v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. David v. GoodmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Learned v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  3. Schwarz v. HatchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API