RAAHAUGE v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR SOLANO COUNTY (1949)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

RAAHAUGE v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR SOLANO COUNTY et al.

Civ. 7549–A.

Decided: May 03, 1949

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, O'Hara Randall and Castagnetto & Kilpatrick, Vallejo, for appellant. Leo C. Dunnell, Fairfield, Wallace W. Everett, Napa, Elden C. Friel, San Francisco, for defendants-respondents.

In addition to the appeal taken in Estate of Raahauge, Cal.App., 205 P.2d 1122, the appellant therein also filed in this court his petition for review of the action of the trial court in refusing to confirm the purchase of the corporate stock there in question. The purpose in filing said petition for review was as stated therein ‘to prevent loss of his right to a review of said judgment in the event this court decides that the said judgment is not appealable.’ An order was thereupon issued by this court directing the respondents to appear and show cause why the petition should not be allowed. At the time of oral argument said order was submitted pending the filing of our opinion in Estate of Raahauge. Inasmuch as we concluded in our opinion filed this day in said estate that the order of the trial court was one from which an appeal could be taken this proceeding has become meaningless. C.C.P. sec. 1068. The writ is discharged.

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Out of date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