Traylen v. Citraro

California Court of Appeal

Traylen v. Citraro

297 P. 652, 112 Cal. App. 763, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1082

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 25, 1931

DocketDocket No. 6868.

StatusPublished

This text of 297 P. 652 (Traylen v. Citraro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Traylen v. Citraro, 297 P. 652, 112 Cal. App. 763, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1082 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Separate appeals were taken by the defendants Pratt and Citraro from a judgment for damages entered against them, after verdict by a jury, in the above-entitled action; and the appeals are presented on separate records. [1] All of the grounds urged for reversal by both defendants were considered and determined in the adverse decision we have this day filed in the appeal taken by the defendant Citraro (Traylen v. Citraro (No. 6866), ante, p. 172 [297 P. 649]). Therefore, in accordance with the views therein expressed, the judgment as to the defendant Pratt is affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on March 27, 1931, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 23, 1931. *Page 764

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

THE COURT.

Separate appeals were taken by the defendants Pratt and Citraro from a judgment for damages entered against them, after verdict by a jury, in the above-entitled action; and the appeals are presented on separate records. [1] All of the grounds urged for reversal by both defendants were considered and determined in the adverse decision we have this day filed in the appeal taken by the defendant Citraro (Traylen v. Citraro (No. 6866), ante, p. 172 [297 P. 649]). Therefore, in accordance with the views therein expressed, the judgment as to the defendant Pratt is affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on March 27, 1931, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 23, 1931. *Page 764

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 P. 652, 112 Cal. App. 763, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traylen-v-citraro-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack