Flores v. Stone

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 5, 1913

California Court of Appeal · decided 1913-02-05

<p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on Payne & Dewey v. Treadwell · In re Estate of Baby · City of San Francisco v. Pacific Bank

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1913-02-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 1984

12 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THE COURT.

¶1In this case a rehearing in the supreme court is asked on several grounds, some of which are not mentioned in the briefs, but are first raised in the petition to the district court of appeal for a rehearing in that court. It is our settled rule not to grant a rehearing to consider points not presented in the briefs or arguments upon which the casé was submitted for decision. (Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 247; Kellogg v. Cochran, 87 Cal. 200, [12 L. R. A. 104, 25 Pac. 677]; San Francisco v. Pacific Bank, 89 Cal. 25, [26 Pac. 615, 835]; Wilcox v. Luco, 118 Cal. 643, [62 Am. St. Rep. 305, 45 L. R. A. 579, 45 Pac. 676, 50 Pac. 758].),

¶2The petition for rehearing is denied.