Santa Rosa City Railroad v. Central Street Railway Co.
SANTA ROSA CITY RAILROAD v. CENTRAL STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
- 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.
In this cause it is impossible for a majority of the court to arrive at a conclusion upon the merits of the case, for the reason that the chief justice is disqualified, and, of the six associates, Justices Van Fleet, Garoutte, and McFarland think that the judg*437ment of the lower court should be reversed for the reasons given in the former opinion of Justice Van Fleet (38 Pac. Rep. 986), and Justices Henshaw, Harrison, and Temple think that said judgment should be affirmed. The case has been twice argued in Bank— orally and by briefs—and frequent consultations have demonstrated that the differences of opinion among the said justices are permanent. Moreover, there is no probability of immediate change in the personnel of the court. Under these circumstances, we think that, upon the authority of Frankel v. Deidesheimer, 93 Cal. 73, and Luco v. De Toro, 88 Cal. 26, the judgment should be affirmed.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
Beatty, C. J., being disqualified, did not participate in the foregoing.
Rehearing denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Santa Rosa City R. Co. v. Central St. Ry. Co. No. 15,202 · 1895-01-06
- Frankel v. Deidesheimer No. 13412 · 1892-01-22
- Luco v. De Toro No. 12566 · 1891-02-05
Cited by
- REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Civ. 45813 · 1975-10-30
- The Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Jurgens S.F. No. 6460. · 1915-05-28
- Matter of Zany Crim. No. 1771. · 1913-02-19
- Los Angeles Ry. Co. v. Los Angeles L.A. No. 1847. · 1907-11-07
- L.A. Ry. v. City of L.A. L. A. No. 1847 · 1907-11-07
- Smith v. Ferries & C. H. Railway Co. No. 15,962 · 1897-12-28