Quinn v. Kenyon
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Murray v. Heinze (Mont. 1895)
- Peri v. Culley (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
- Gaster v. Hinkley (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
- Lowry v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1920)
- Morgan v. Los Angeles Pacific Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1910)
- Bates v. Howard (Cal. 1894)
- McCauley v. Tyler (Mont. 1891)
- Beeckenridge v. Crocker (Cal. 1886)
- Pico v. Cohn (Cal. 1885)
- Field v. Kinnear (Kan. 1869)
- Hall v. The Bark "Emily Banning" (Cal. 1867)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This Court has repeatedly decided that the power to grant new trials is one of legal discretion, and the abuse of that discretion only will justify an interference with the order. It is only in rare instances and upon very strong grounds that this Court will set aside an order granting a new trial, and this is not a case which calls for the exercise of that power.
In this case, it is doubtful whether this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal; but as that point was not argued, we leave it open for future consideration. (See Paul v. Silver, 16 Cal. 75.)
The order granting the new trial is affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.