State v. Woodlief
2 Cal. 241
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court. The summons in this case is radically defective, and insufficient to support a judgment by default; so much so that the Attorney General expresses his unwillingness to urge the affirmance of the judgment. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to look further into the case.
Judgment reversed, &c.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Woodlief, 2 Cal. 241 (Cal. 1852).
2 Cal. 241 (State v. Woodlief) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court
153 Cal. App. 3d 555 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
López v. Meléndez
22 P.R. 145 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1915)
Palmer v. McMaster
8 Mont. 186 (Montana Supreme Court, 1888)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. v. Nicholls
8 Colo. 188 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1884)
McMillan v. Reynolds
11 Cal. 372 (California Supreme Court, 1858)