gno.law

Montgomery v. Sullivan

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 9984 · 1961-03-24 · Published · 190 Cal. App. 2d 874 · 12 Cal. Rptr. 59 · 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 2382

GROVER B. MONTGOMERY v. CARL SULLIVAN, Defendants ARTHUR B. SIRI, INC. (a Corporation)

Area
civil
Panel
Andrew R. Schottky (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 — Schottky

SCHOTTKY, J.

This ease involves the same issues as the case of Puckett v. Sullivan, ante, p. 489 [12 Cal.Rptr. 55], 3 Civil Number 10002, in which our opinion was this day filed. Although the two eases were tried separately and decided by different judges, the only factual difference of any significance is that the Montgomery property is farther removed from the area of the cut than the Puckett property. Both appellant and respondents agree that this court’s decision in the Puckett case will control the decision in the instant ease.

For the reasons set forth in Puckett v. Sullivan, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

Van Dyke, P. J., and Peek, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied April 21, 1961, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 16, 1961.

Cites, in this corpus