Irwin v. Anspacher

California Court of Appeal Feb 20, 1933 No. Civ. No. 8460Published

Before: Parker

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment based on an agreement by counsel that the decision in the companion case, Irwin v. Murphy, would control the outcome of this case.

Issues

Whether the judgment should be affirmed based on the agreement of counsel to follow the decision in a companion case.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Upon agreement of counsel the decision in either of these cases was to control the decision of the other.”

“Judgment affirmed.”

PARKER, J., pro tem. This is a companion case to Irwin v. Murphy, ante, p. 713 [19 Pac. (2d) 292]. Upon agreement of counsel the decision in either of these cases was to control the decision of the other.

Judgment affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 20, 1933.

Irwin v. Anspacher

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief