Simmons v. Keller
50 Cal. 38, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 79
Opinion
A similar question was presented in Chipman v. Hibberd (47 Cal. 638), where we affirmed the order of the District Court dismissing a pending action for the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute within a reasonable time. We think there was no abuse of the discretion of the Court in this case.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Simmons v. Keller, 50 Cal. 38, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 79 (Cal. 1875).
50 Cal. 38 (Simmons v. Keller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Oberkotter v. Spreckels
221 P.2d 698 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Blickenstaff v. Cowgill
106 N.E. 376 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1914)
Congdon v. Aumiller
140 P. 912 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
Romero v. Snyder
138 P. 1002 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Estate of Chavier v. Estate of Giráldez
15 P.R. 145 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1909)
People's Home Sav. Bank v. Sherman
90 P. 133 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
San Jose Land & Water Co. v. Allen
61 P. 1083 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
People Ex Rel. Stone v. Jefferds
58 P. 704 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
McLaughlin v. Clausen
48 P. 487 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
First National Bank v. Nason
47 P. 595 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Hassey v. S. San Francisco Homestead & R.R. Ass'n
36 P. 945 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Kreiss v. Hotaling
33 P. 1125 (California Supreme Court, 1893)