Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Statutes
Free Legal Archive /California /Cases /California Courts of Appeal /

1929

1063 California Courts of Appeal opinions from 1929.

  • People v. Crandall 281 P. 81, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • People v. Cloud 281 P. 79, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • People v. Huntsman 281 P. 100, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Von Stetten v. Yellow-Checker Cab Co. 281 P. 95, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Johnson v. Department of Industrial Relations 281 P. 440, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • In Re Beers 280 P. 1033, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • In re Beers 100 Cal. App. 796, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Miller v. Salomon 281 P. 89, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Zlozower v. Lindenbaum 281 P. 102, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Rusconi v. California Fruit Exchange 281 P. 84, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • In Re Hann 281 P. 74, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • MacDonald v. Reich & Lievre, Inc. 281 P. 106, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Cohn v. Cohn 281 P. 504, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Behler v. Kunde 281 P. 76, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Woodhead v. Children's Agency 100 Cal. App. 743, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Andrews v. City of Piedmont 281 P. 78, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Strehlow v. Mothorn 280 P. 1021, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Andrews v. Barrett 281 P. 79, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Armstead v. Jackson 280 P. 1028, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Shipley Co. v. Rosemead Co. 280 P. 1017, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Middlecamp v. Zumwalt 280 P. 1003, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Williams v. City of Piedmont 281 P. 79, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Security-First National Bank v. Superior Court 280 P. 995, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Estate of Springer 280 P. 1016, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Andrews v. Barrett 100 Cal. App. 801, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Williams v. City of Piedmont 281 P. 79, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Hessel v. Pickwick Stages System, Inc. 280 P. 1016, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Wilson v. Mardakis 280 P. 989, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Tight v. Wells 280 P. 1024, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • People v. Costello 280 P. 988, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hollman 280 P. 1034, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Dwarack v. Wakefield 280 P. 987, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Pacific Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court 280 P. 991, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Doyle v. Superior Court 280 P. 992, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Moore v. Maryland Casualty Co. 280 P. 1008, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • People v. Steele 280 P. 999, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Scott v. Southern Pacific Co. 280 P. 996, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Moranda v. Mapes 280 P. 713, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Appling v. Minarets & Western Railway Co. 280 P. 1029, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Appling v. Sugar Pine Lumber Company 280 P. 1033, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Appling v. Sugar Pine Lumber Co. 100 Cal. App. 800, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Jardine, Matheson & Co. v. Pacific Orient Co. 280 P. 697, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Nelson v. Marsh 280 P. 695, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Meilink v. Gianelli 280 P. 561, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Crudo v. Crudo 280 P. 693, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Latta v. Da Roza 280 P. 711, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Halminska v. Kobler 280 P. 699, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Rothschild v. Gianelli 280 P. 562, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Fuller v. Everett 280 P. 550, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
  • Lipp v. Moon 280 P. 710, (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
« Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 22 Next »

A public interest project of Aaron Hall, Attorney at Law © 2026

About Federal Minnesota California New York Texas Terms

Data from CourtListener / Free Law Project

↑