Leonard v. Osburn

146 P. 530, 169 Cal. 157, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 478
California Supreme Court·Decided January 22, 1915·No. S.F. No. 6221.·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinions

The court is satisfied with the discussion of the case in the opinion of the district court of appeal of the first district, and for the reasons stated in that opinion, it is ordered that the judgment be reversed. We cite the additional case of Hall v.Bartlett, 158 Cal. 641, [112 P. 176], which is very closely in point.

The following is the opinion of the District Court of Appeal of the first appellate district, above referred to and approved, rendered on September 24, 1914.

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

Leonard v. Osburn, 146 P. 530, 169 Cal. 157, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 478 (Cal. 1915).

146 P. 530 (Leonard v. Osburn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pok v. ZBS Law LLP
E.D. California, 2025
Martin v. Martin
875 S.W.2d 819 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1994)
Matter of Adoption of Parsons
791 S.W.2d 681 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1990)
Rosner v. Worcester
811 F.2d 1224 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Matter of Adoption of Glover
702 S.W.2d 12 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1986)
Horace Case v. Arthur E. Morrisette
475 F.2d 1300 (D.C. Circuit, 1973)
F. P. Baugh, Inc. v. Little Lake Lumber Co.
185 F. Supp. 628 (N.D. California, 1960)
Sieger v. Standard Oil Co.
318 P.2d 479 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Brown v. Copp
232 P.2d 868 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Wheeler Perry Co. v. Mortgage Bond Co.
17 P.2d 331 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1932)
In Re Estate of Wolf
17 P.2d 1052 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Kugler v. Scarborough
14 P.2d 806 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Howe v. Messimer
275 P. 281 (Montana Supreme Court, 1929)
Richardson v. O'Hanrahan
256 P. 1103 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Crouse-Prouty v. Rogers
164 P.2d 901 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)