Legal Opinion
Hamm v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 5, 1941No. Civ. 6479; Civ. 6480PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
A collision occurred at the intersection of two highways in Merced County, between three automobiles operated respectively by Messrs. Hamm, Fittje and Yoest. Cross suits, based on that accident, were filed by two of the participants in the same court. For the purpose of identity we shall refer to the actions as the Hamm ease and the Fittje suit. A summons was first served in the Fittje suit, which was last instituted. Mr. Fittje moved the court to dismiss the Hamm complaint for lack of jurisdiction. That motion was finally denied. The eases were consolidated and tried together with the aid of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gorman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Gritsch v. Pickwick Stages SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Mehollin v. YsuchiyamaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- In Re Estate of ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Ayres v. BensleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Datta v. StaabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Myers v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Western Pipe & Steel Co. v. Tuolumne Gold Dredging Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Cannis v. Di Salvo Trucking Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Martens v. Redi-Spuds, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1952
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.