Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Julius I. HAUGEN and Ole Haugen, Appellees, 1929 — 36 F.2d 948 · caselaw · US
Corporations
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Julius I. HAUGEN and Ole Haugen, Appellees
36 F.2d 948·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Julius I. HAUGEN and Ole Haugen, Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 17, 1929.
Motion for Modification of Opinion Denied January 13, 1930.
No. 5720.
Butler, Van Dyke & Desmond, of Sacramento, Cal., and Edward P. Kelly, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Ralph H. Lewis and George E. McCutchen, both of Sacramento, Cal., for appellees.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.]
DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.
This is one of the Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Company eases.
The charge to the jury covers 20 pages of the printed transcript, and the major portion thereof, approximately 16 pages, is given to a discussion of the testimony. The comment and argument therein contained are of such character as to bring it within the condemnation of the rule recognized in our decision in Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Parker (No. 5680) 36 F.(2d) 926, another case in the same group this day decided.
Accordingly the judgment will be reversed.