Legal Opinion

Meindersee v. Meyers

California Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1922No. S. F. No. 9665PublishedCited by 34 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, J.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the wife, through falling into an excavation made in the street by employees of the defendant, and left in an unguarded condition. The action was tried with a jury, which awarded plaintiffs a verdict of seven thousand five hundred dollars. This amount was reduced by the trial court to five thousand dollars, with the consent of the plaintiffs, as an alternative to granting a motion for a new trial. Judgment was entered for that amount and the defendant has…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Giraude v. Elec. Improvement Co. of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Crabbe v. Mammoth Channel Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Lowell v. Township of WatertownMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Jacobson v. Oakland Meat & Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1911

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Austin v. Riverside Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp.California Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Neel v. Mannings, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Peters v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Miller v. PetersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API