TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.

IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, and v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant SAMUEL I. HARTMAN, as Receiver, etc., Interveners and

Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 141 P.2d 19 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 21, 1943
Docket
No. Civ. No. 12584
Judges
Peters
Citations
141 P.2d 1960 Cal. App. 2d 8451943 Cal. App. LEXIS 595

Opinion of the Court — Peters

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PETERS, P. J.

This is the second appeal in this ease. On the prior appeal the judgment was affirmed, without dissent, except as to an item of interest. ( 55 Cal.App.2d 720 [ 132 P.2d 70 ], at p. 774 [p. 101].) A petition for rehearing was denied, one justice voting to grant the same. The majority and dissenting justices filed opinions on such denial. ( 55 Cal.App.2d at p. 774 .) The Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. ( 55 Cal.App.2d at p. 775 .) Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for certiorari. (- U.S. - [ 63 S.Ct. 1435 , 87 L. Ed. -].)

After the return of the remittitur to the trial court, it amended its findings, conclusions and judgment in relation to the item of interest above mentioned, as directed by this court. From this modified judgment the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company prosecutes this appeal on the same record (sup *846 plemented by the amended findings, conclusions and judgment) and on the same briefs as were presented on the prior appeal. No contention is made that the modified judgment is not in exact accord with the instructions to the trial court set forth in the prior opinion. Upon the authority of, and for the reasons set forth in, the prior opinion the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Ward, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 25, 1943.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 11982: 119522026peak 1952 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.342 U.S. 437 (1952)
  2. Fisher v. Smith (In re Medico Associates, Inc.)23 B.R. 307 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Fisher v. Smith (In re Medico Associates, Inc.)23 B.R. 307 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1982)
  2. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.342 U.S. 437 (1952)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 132 P.2d 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942) 63

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list