United States District Court for the Eastern District of California — 1918 Opinions | HallApproved.com

In re Marx 255 F. 344, (1918)
North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission 23 F.2d 109, (1918)
Waterson, Berlin & Snyder Co. v. Tollefson 253 F. 859, (1918)
Deuel v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. 253 F. 857, (1918)
United States v. Schulze 253 F. 377, (1918)
Citizens' Trust & Savings Bank v. Hobbs 253 F. 479, (1918)
United States v. Gin Ong 253 F. 210, (1918)
The Magnolia 253 F. 400, (1918)
United States v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co. 266 F. 142, (1918)
Ex parte Short 253 F. 839, (1918)
San Francisco & P. S. S. Co. v. Scott 253 F. 854, (1918)
Dunkley Co. v. Pasadena Canning Co. 261 F. 203, (1918)
Spring Valley Water Co. v. City of San Francisco 252 F. 979, (1918)
United States v. Lewis 253 F. 469, (1918)
Petroleum Rectifying Co. of California v. Reward Oil Co. 260 F. 183, (1918)
Ex parte Beales 252 F. 177, (1918)
In re Gordon 250 F. 798, (1918)
In re Addis 252 F. 886, (1918)
Boitano v. District Board, Northern Dist. No. 3 250 F. 812, (1918)
United States v. Fung Sam Wing 254 F. 500, (1918)
In re Independent Sewer Pipe Co. 248 F. 547, (1918)
In re Britton 248 F. 607, (1918)
States v. Honolulu Consol. Oil Co. 249 F. 167, (1918)
Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. v. Twenty-one Mining Co. 254 F. 630, (1918)
The Royal Arrow 248 F. 546, (1918)
Corrado v. Pedersen 249 F. 165, (1918)
The Santa Rosa 249 F. 160, (1918)
In re Fackelman 248 F. 565, (1918)
The Thor 248 F. 942, (1918)
In re Armstrong 248 F. 292, (1918)