Legal Opinion

Mecham v. Crump

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 3, 1934No. Docket No. 4953PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

This is an action for damages for injuries received by plaintiff resulting from being struck by an automobile operated by defendant Lillian Crump.

Defendants E. M. Crump and Lillian Crump are husband and wife and at the time of the accident Lillian Crump was operating the automobile by and with the consent of her said husband.

This action was tried by a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against both defendants. Defendants moved for a new trial, and same being denied, both defendants appealed from the judgment rendered upon said verdict.

Defendants…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Fox v. Oakland Consolidated Street RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Davis v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. ScamellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. Blackwell v. RenwickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Austin v. Riverside Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Florez v. Groom Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Ostertag v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Koppang v. SevierMontana Supreme Court · 1938

16 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