gno.law

Hoopes v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 4938 · 1925-03-07 · Published · 71 Cal. App. 799

EMMA HOOPES v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Area
civil
Panel
Craig (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 — Craig

CRAIG, J.

Petitioners herein were defendants in an action commenced in the justice’s court of Los Angeles township by one Jay Smith. Otherwise the record before us in this proceeding is the same in all respects as that presented in Hoopes v. Superior Court, ante, p. 564 [235 Pac. 739.]

The questions involved herein have been discussed and decided in the opinion filed in case numbered 4939 {ante, p. 564).

The peremptory writ of mandate is therefore -granted, and the Superior Court is directed to dismiss the appeal.

Finlayson, P. J., and Works, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus