Coveny v. Hale
Citations
- 49 Cal. 552
Syllabus
<p>Filing Notice of Moving fob a New Tbial.—A notice of intention to move for a new trial, must be filed within thirty days after the findings of fact are filed.</p> <p>Decision of the Cohbt—Facts Found.—The decision mentioned in section 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an objection to which, on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain it, must specify the particulars in which the evidence is alleged to be insufficient, is the facts found and conclusions of law drawn therefrom.</p> <p>Specification of Reasons why New Tbial Should be Gbanted.—A specification in a bill of exceptions as a reason why a new trial should be granted, “ that the said judgment is contrary to the evidence in this,” (then stating wherein), does not enable the Court to inquire-whether the findings are justified by the evidence.</p> <p>Finding of Facts.—The Court, in finding the facts, may find either the ultimate facts, or such probative facts as enable the Court to declare that the ultimate facts necessarily result therefrom. A finding which is merely a recital of evidence, and does not conclusively establish the fact in issue, is not sufficient.</p> <p>Objections to Evidence.—If the papers in a case in Court are offered in evidence, a general objection that they are irrelevant, immaterial, and not proof of the fact in issue, is not well taken if some of the papers are admissible.</p>
Judges: McKinstry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304California Court of Appeal· 1964-06-10· cited 177×
- Miller v. LucoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-09-02· cited 49×
- Bull v. BrayCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-05-28· cited 36×
- Biddel v. BrizzolaraCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 31×
- Lewis v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-08-16· cited 30×
- People v. HagarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 29×
- Nichols & Shepard Co. v. StanglerNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1897-10-18· cited 19×
- Churchill v. BaumannCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-08-06· cited 17×
- Anthony v. JillsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-03-01· cited 14×
- Cole v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court· 1922-03-21· cited 14×
- Synnott v. ShaughnessyIdaho Supreme Court· 1885-03-02· cited 11×
- Coglan v. BeardCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-02-12· cited 11×
- City of San Francisco v. Pacific BankCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-05-04· cited 11×
- Crooks v. HarmonUtah Supreme Court· 1905-05-26· cited 11×
- Packard v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-01· cited 9×
- McCray v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-09-05· cited 8×
- Board of Education v. KeenanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 5×
- Wasatch Irrigation Co. v. FultonUtah Supreme Court· 1901-05-01· cited 5×
- Younger v. PaglesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-05-29· cited 4×
- Walker v. BuffandeauCalifornia Supreme Court· 1883-04-14· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.