green
Positive treatment
1.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1929 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1929
1977
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Swinerton & Walberg Co. v. Union Bank
Rev. 179 , 190; see Smith v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 205 Cal. 496, 502 [ 271 P. 898 ]), and therefore does not depend on the availability to the claimant of the statutory stop notice remedy.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pankow Construction Co. v. Advance Mortgage Corp.
See, e. g., Smith v. Anglo California Trust Co., 205 Cal. 496, 502-03 , 271 P. 898 (1928); Boyd & Lovesee, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at 464 , 118 Cal.Rptr. 699 ; Swinerton & Walberg Co. v. Union Bank, 25 Cal.App.3d 259, 264-65 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 665 (1972); Miller v. Mountain View Savings & Loan Ass’n, 238 Cal.App.2d 644, 661 , 48 Cal.Rptr. 278 (1965); Gutierrez, supra, 30 Hast.L.J. at 505; Goulden and Dent, supra, 54 Cal.L.Rev. at 190; Note, Security Transactions: Mechanics’ Equitable Lien on Construction Loan Funds, 5 Santa Clara Lawyer 69, 74 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People
v.
W.P. Hodges, Defendants Seaboard Surety Corporation of America
v.
W.P. Hodges, Defendants Seaboard Surety Corporation of America
Docket No. L.A. 10778..
California Supreme Court.
Nov 10, 1928.
Arthur T. Stollmack for Appellant.
Everett W. Matoon, County Counsel, and S.V.O. Prichard, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
Published
THE COURT.
[1] This case does not materially differ from People v. Hodges (L.A. 10777), ante, p. 476 [271 P. 897], and upon the authority of that case the purported appeal herein must be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.