gno.law

G. L. Tilden & Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 15288; Civ. No. 15289; Civ. No. 15290; Civ. No. 15291; Civ. No. 15292; Civ. No. 15293; Civ. No. 15294; Civ. No. 15295; Civ. No. 15296; Civ. No. 15297; Civ. No. 15298; Civ. No. 15299; Civ. No. 15300 · 1952-07-21 · Published · 112 Cal. App. 2d 893 · 246 P.2d 697 · 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1120

G. L. TILDEN AND COMPANY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent WALKUP DRAYAGE AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent MERCHANTS EXPRESS CORPORATION v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent HAGSTROM'S FOOD STORES, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent HASLETT WAREHOUSE COMPANY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent MANNINGS, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent J. A. CLARK DRAYING COMPANY, LTD. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent HIGHWAY TRANSPORT INCORPORATED v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent ROBERTSON DRAYAGE COMPANY, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent FOSTERS LUNCH SYSTEM, LTD. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent UNION ICE AND STORAGE COMPANY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent THE UNION ICE COMPANY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent PENINSULA ICE COMPANY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

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.

The facts and issues in these proceedings are similar to those involved in John Breuner Co. v. Superior Court, Civ. No. 15287, ante, p. 304 [246 P.2d 694] this day decided. For the reasons therein stated the orders are affirmed.

Petitioners’ application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 18, 1952. Schauer, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Cites, in this corpus