Legal Opinion

Cranston v. Compton

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 3, 1962No. Civ. 19892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

In Estate of Compton (1962) 198 Cal. App.2d 766 [18 Cal.Rptr. 416], following the decision of this court affirming the order below, the parties stipulated that a remittitur should issue forthwith. The remittitur issued on January 31, 1962, and it contained the provision: “Respondent to recover costs on appeal.” Appellant filed a motion for recall of the remittitur on the ground that costs may not be awarded against the Controller under the provisions of section 14675 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. While conflicting provisions of three statutes and of the Rules on Appeal seemingly apply to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. In Re WilliamsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Board of Supervisors v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Boyd v. HuntingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Riley v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Buckley v. CoreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  2. Pacific Automobile Insurance v. WolffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  3. Department of Industrial Relations v. Se Hwan LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API