Home/California Supreme Court/Hampton v. Christensen

Hampton v. Christensen

84 P. 200, 148 Cal. 729, 1906 Cal. LEXIS 362
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 21, 1906
DocketS.F. Nos. 3426, 3427.
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 84 P. 200 (Hampton v. Christensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hampton v. Christensen, 84 P. 200, 148 Cal. 729, 1906 Cal. LEXIS 362 (Cal. 1906).

Opinions

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 731 The opinion heretofore rendered in Department is modified by striking therefrom all of paragraph 6 down to and including the words "fees were excessive." So modified, the opinion and judgment in Department are approved and adopted as the opinion and judgment of the court in Bank.

The following is the opinion rendered in Department Two November 25, 1905, omitting the paragraph stricken out: —

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Vega-Hernandez
179 Cal. App. 3d 1084 (California Court of Appeal, 1986)
Pacific Employers Insurance v. State of California
477 P.2d 129 (California Supreme Court, 1970)
A-1 Door & Materials Co. v. Fresno Guarantee Savings & Loan Ass'n
394 P.2d 829 (California Supreme Court, 1964)
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. OAK GROVE UNION SCH. DIST. OF SONOMA CTY.
205 Cal. App. 2d 226 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Calhoun v. Huntington Park First Savings & Loan Ass'n
186 Cal. App. 2d 451 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Street v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
79 F.2d 68 (Ninth Circuit, 1935)
Hammond Lumber Co. v. Moore
286 P. 504 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Diamond Match Co. v. Sanitary Fruit Co.
234 P. 322 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
Roberts v. Spires
232 P. 708 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
Bird v. American Surety Co. of New York
166 P. 1009 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Roystone Co. v. Darling
154 P. 15 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Pacific Sash and Door Co. v. Elderton
140 P. 247 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Welles v. Portuguese-American Bank
211 F. 561 (Ninth Circuit, 1914)
United Materials Co. v. Loughery
133 P. 18 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Martin v. McCabe
132 P. 606 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Mannix v. Wilson
123 P. 981 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Clark v. Beyrle
116 P. 739 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
D. I. Nofziger Lumber Co. v. Solomon
110 P. 474 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Russell v. Ross
106 P. 583 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires
97 P. 152 (California Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 P. 200, 148 Cal. 729, 1906 Cal. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-christensen-cal-1906.