# Pearce v. Linde

> California Court of Appeal · October 10, 1952 · 113 Cal. App. 2d 627

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793529

## Case

- **Full name:** CARL C. PEARCE, Appellant, v. FREDERICK G. LINDE Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** October 10, 1952
- **Citations:** 113 Cal. App. 2d 627; 248 P.2d 506; 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1418
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dooling
- **Judges:** Nourse, Dooling
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793529

## Opinion text

DOOLING, J.
I concur. If I felt free to do so I would be inclined to hold the expert from Reno sufficiently qualified, but the trend of recent decisions culminating with Huffman v. Lindquist, 37 Cal.2d 465 [ 234 P.2d 34 ], indicates too clearly ■ an opposite view in a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court for me to feel free to do other than concur.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 8, 1952, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 8, 1952. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793529. Public record. Not legal advice.