Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Higgins v. Barker

1 Citing case

  1. Burke v. Koch

    75 Cal. 356 (Cal. 1888)   Cited 19 times
    In Burke v. Koch, 75 Cal. 356, a judgment was given for the value of the property, found to be six thousand dollars, without any provision for the return of the property.

             The judgment is erroneous, and should be reversed because not in the alternative. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 667, 682, subd. 5, 687; Dwight v. Enos , 9 N.Y. 472; Nickerson v. Chatterton , 7 Cal. 571, 572; Campbell v. Jones , 38 Cal. 507; Kelly v. McKibben , 54 Cal. 195; McCue v. Tunstead , 66 Cal. 487; Cummings v. Stewart , 42 Cal. 233; Berson v. Nunan , 63 Cal. 552; Carson v. Applegarth, 6 Nev. 189; Lambert v. McFarland, 2 Nev. 58; Fitzhugh v. Wiman , 9 N.Y. 559; Ford v. Ford , 3 Wis. 401; Wallace v. Hilliard , 7 Wis. 628.) The judgment is further erroneous, because it is for a greater sum than was sued for. (Hooper v. Wells, Fargo & Co ., 27 Cal. 35; 85 Am. Dec. 211.)