Quinlan v. Packard-Bell Co.
236 P.2d 206, 106 Cal. App. 2d 829, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1840
Opinion
It has been stipulated that the decision in Marshall v. Packard-Bell, No. 18411 (ante, p. 770 [236 P.2d 201]), shall be controlling in the above-entitled case. Since we have this day filed a decision affirming the judgment in Marshall v. Packard-Bell, it is ordered that the judgment in the instant ease be affirmed.
Moore, P. J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 1,1951, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 13, 1951.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Quinlan v. Packard-Bell Co., 236 P.2d 206, 106 Cal. App. 2d 829, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1840 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).
236 P.2d 206 (Quinlan v. Packard-Bell Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Marshall v. Packard-Bell Co.
236 P.2d 201 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)