green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924
1975
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Turner v. Housing Authority
See United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 , 70 S.Ct. 537, 544 , 94 L.Ed. 750 , 761 (1950); Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir.Ill.1972); Pincus v. Pabst Brewing Co., 752 F.Supp. 871, 872-873 (E.D.Wis.1990); Kowis v. Howard, 3 Cal.4th 888 , 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , 838 P.2d 250 , *33 251 (1992); In Re Estate of Baird, 193 Cal. 225 , 223 P. 974, 978 (1924); Alumet v. Bear Lake Grazing Co., 119 Idaho 946 , 812 P.2d 253, 257 (1991); Stroh Brewery Co. v. Director of New Mexico Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 112 N.M. 468 , 816 P.2d 1090, 1096…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tu v. State
See also United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 , 70 S.Ct. 537, 544 , 94 L.Ed. 750 , 761 (1950); Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir. Ill.1972); Pincus v. Pabst Brewing Co., 752 F.Supp. 871, 872-873 (E.D.Wis.1990); Kowis v. Howard, 3 Cal.4th 888 , 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728, 729 , 838 P.2d 250, 251 (1992); In Re Estate of Baird, 193 Cal. 225 , 223 P. 974, 978 (1924); Alumet v. Bear Lake Grazing Co., 119 Idaho 946 , 812 P.2d 253, 257 (1991); Stroh Brewery Co. v. Director of New Mexico Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 112 N.M. 468 , 816 P.2d 1090…
discussed
Cited "see"
Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization
(2×)
See Estate of Baird, 193 Cal. 225 , 223 P. 974 ; Bank of America v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 2d 697 , 128 P. 2d 357 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Burden v. Agnew
The court concluded: “Under the plain terms of section 6452, the only sustainable conclusion on this record is that [father] acknowledged [decedent].” (Estate of Griswold, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 911; see also Estate of Baird (1924) 193 Cal. 225, 276 [ 223 P. 974 ] [“A distinction wiU be recognized between a mere failure to disclose or publicly acknowledge paternity and a willful misrepresentation in regard to it; in such circumstances there must be no purposeful concealment of the fact of paternity”].) The Griswold court also held that section 6452 should not be read to require that a…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
North Confidence Mining and Development Company (A Corporation)
v.
C. S. Fitch
v.
C. S. Fitch
Sac. No. 3561..
California Supreme Court.
Feb 25, 1924.
Frank W. Street and Horace M. Street for Respondent.
THE COURT..
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal from the judgment taken by the appellants upon the ground that the notice of appeal was filed too late. This question turns upon whether or not there was a motion pending for a new trial. Appellants claim that the notice of intention to move for a new trial was not properly served and filed. Since the hearing of the motion affidavits have been filed showing that the notice of intention to move for a new trial was properly served by mail. The notice *Page 337 of appeal from the judgment was filed within due time after the disposition of the motion for a new trial and the motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment is, therefore, denied.