CONNER v. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST (1935)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

CONNER v. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST. et al.

Civ. 9556.

Decided: September 04, 1935

Crosby & Crosby, of Oakland, for appellants. Clark, Nichols & Eltse, of Berkeley, for respondent.

In denying the petition for rehearing herein, it may be said that in our opinion the state of the evidence in the case is such that the refusal of the trial court to give the two instructions set out in appellant's petition did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and consequently in no event would such refusal constitute grounds for reversal of the judgment. Const. Cal., art. 6, § 41/212. Moreover, the suggestion that the refusal to give these two instructions was error is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing, and it has been repeatedly declared that a rehearing will not be granted under such circumstances. Estate of Edwards, 126 Cal. App. 152, 14 P.(2d) 318, 15 P.(2d) 194; Mann v. Brison, 120 Cal. App. 450, 7 P.(2d) 1110, 9 P.(2d) 257; Pasadena Ice Co. v. Reeder, 206 Cal. 697, 275 P. 944, 276 P. 995; In re Novotny's Estate, 94 Cal. App. 782, 271 P. 923, 273 P. 58; People v. New York Indemnity Co., 113 Cal. App. 487, 298 P. 849.

Rehearing denied.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network