Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

95 Cal. 160

Tyler v. Mayre

California Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-06-18

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from, an order denying a new trial.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Commissioner Vanclief.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-06-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 1978

1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

60189219001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

De Haven, J., concurring.

¶1I concur in-the judgment of reversal, but dissent from that part of the opinion which holds that the court erred in sustaining the objection made to plaintiff’s offer to show by his own testimony that it was “agreed between plaintiff, Jane E. Chase, and William Irvine, that plaintiff should continue to prosecute the case as attorney for plaintiff, and if he finally succeeded in getting a judgment, he should be paid out of the proceeds of said judgment, when collected, a reasonable fee and the further offer to show by the same testimony what was agreed at the same time in reference to the written agreement referred to in the testimony of witness Reinstein.

¶2Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

/95/cal/160 · .json · Public domain