Snyder v. Plummer

California Supreme Court

Snyder v. Plummer

174 Cal. 118

California Supreme Court·Decided December 22, 1916·No. Sac. No. 2616·Published

Opinion

THE COURT.

In denying a rehearing it is proper to state

that the petition for a writ of review was denied because it showed on its face a prior application to the district court of appeal of the third appellate district, and a denial by that court. This barred a new application for such a writ to this court, the only remedy of petitioner being a petition for hearing in this court of the district court of appeal proceeding.

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

THE COURT.

In denying a rehearing it is proper to state

that the petition for a writ of review was denied because it showed on its face a prior application to the district court of appeal of the third appellate district, and a denial by that court. This barred a new application for such a writ to this court, the only remedy of petitioner being a petition for hearing in this court of the district court of appeal proceeding.

Snyder v. Plummer, 174 Cal. 118 (Cal. 1916).

Pincite

174 Cal. 118 (Snyder v. Plummer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.