Frankel v. Deidesheimer
L. B. FRANKEL v. PHILIP DEIDESHEIMER
- Area
- civil
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
The Court.
— This cause has been long pending in this court, and has been reargued twice. One of the justices is disqualified from participating in its decision, and of the six other justices three are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and three are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Repeated consultations have ended in the same disagreement, and there is no probability of any change in the opinions of those now constituting the court, or of any immediate change in the personnel of the court. Under these circumstances we think that the judgment should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in Luco v. De Toro, 88 Cal. 26.
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harrison, being disqualified, did not participate in the foregoing.
Cites, in this corpus
- Luco v. De Toro No. 12566 · 1891-02-05
Cited by
- Matter of Zany Crim. No. 1771. · 1913-02-19
- Smith v. Ferries & C. H. Railway Co. No. 15,962 · 1897-12-28
- Santa Rosa City Railroad v. Central Street Railway Co. No. 15,202 · 1896-04-15