Andrews v. Barrett
F.A. Andrews v. R.H. Barrett, as Building Inspector, Etc.
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Alameda County
- Trial judge
- James G. Quinn
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- George A. Sturtevant (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the municipal authorities to issue to the plaintiff a building permit. It was tried one week later than the action entitledAndrews v. City of Piedmont, ante, p. 700 [281 P. 78], this day filed. [1] While the actions were tried separately, the parties stipulated that the evidence in each case could be used in the other; that the reporters' transcripts could be included in one transcript; that the clerk's transcripts could be included in one transcript, and that all of the briefs could be considered in each case.
On the authority of Andrews v. City of Piedmont, supra, the judgment is affirmed.
Nourse, J., and Koford, P.J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Andrews v. City of Piedmont Docket No. 6624. · 1929-09-24
Cited by
- Barrett v. Superior Court Docket No. 7335. · 1930-03-24