People v. Richfield Oil Company

268 P. 355, 204 Cal. 699, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 873
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMay 31, 1928
DocketDocket No. L.A. 8980.
StatusPublished

This text of 268 P. 355 (People v. Richfield Oil Company) 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
People v. Richfield Oil Company, 268 P. 355, 204 Cal. 699, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 873 (Cal. 1928).

Opinions

PRESTON, J.

Upon the authority of People v. Ventura Refining Co., ante, p. 286 [268 Pac. 347], and People v. Richfield Oil Co., ante, p. 301 [268 Pac. 353], the judgment in this cause must be affirmed.

The contracts here are identical with the contracts con-sidered in the case last above cited. The only reason for separate appeals in the two cases was that in one of them the question arose as to when the appellant should have claimed the exemption, but in view of our conclusions announced in these cases, this question becomes immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Richards, J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.

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

Related

People v. Ventura Refining Co.
268 P. 347 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
People v. Richfield Oil Co.
268 P. 353 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss.
248 P. 235 (California Supreme Court, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 P. 355, 204 Cal. 699, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-richfield-oil-company-cal-1928.