Kelly v. Bradbury
THOMAS KELLY v. WILLIAM B. BRADBURY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert R. Fitzgerald (author), Thomas E. Haven, Thomas B. McFarland
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 — Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald, J.
It appears from tbe record that tbe verdict of tbe jury is assailed by the specifications, on tbe ground of tbe insufficiency of tbe evidence to support it.
There is no brief on file by respondent, nor was tbe case orally argued in his behalf; it therefore follows, on the authority of Richter v. Fresno etc. Co., 101 Cal. 582, and Davis v. Hart, 103 Cal. 530, that the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed.
So ordered McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred;
Cites, in this corpus
- Davis v. Hart No. 19401 · 1894-08-13
- Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. No. 18238 · 1894-03-13
Cited by
- Duisenberg-Wichman & Co. v. Johnson Docket No. 7200. · 1932-01-27
- Lutz v. Merchants Nat. Bank L. A. No. 4490. · 1918-12-13
- Bullock v. Bullock Civ. No. 1480. · 1916-01-24
- Bullock v. Bullock Civ. No. 1480 · 1916-01-24
- Lawrence v. Johnson L.A. No. 758. · 1900-12-28
- Mountain Tunnel Gravel Mining Co. v. Bryan No. 18406 · 1896-01-21