Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

L. B. FRANKEL, Appellant, v. PHILIP DEIDESHEIMER et al., Respondents

         JUDGES: In Bank. Mr. Justice Harrison, being disqualified, did not participate.

         OPINION

         THE COURT          This cause has been long pending in this court, and has been reargued twice. One of the justices is disqualified from participating in its decision, and of the six other justices three are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and three are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Repeated consultations have ended in the same disagreement, and there is no probability of any change in the opinions of those now constituting the court, or of any immediate change in the personnel of the court. Under these circumstances we think that the judgment should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in Luco v. De Toro , 88 Cal. 26.

         The judgment and order are affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Frankel v. Deidesheimer
(Jan 22, 1892)