Legal Opinion

Kavner v. Holzmark

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 5, 1960No. Civ. 24171PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAshburn, J.

Appeal from judgment for defendants rendered pursuant to jury verdict in personal injury action and from order denying motion for new trial. Appellant’s brief says: “This appeal is based solely upon the ground that the trial court failed and refused to give instructions to the jury on the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance.”

Pursuant to augmentation of the record ordered upon the court’s own motion (Appeals rule 12), it appears that plaintiff requested the giving of an instruction based upon the formula stated in Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.2d 729, 743 [306 P.2d 432], hence…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Brandelius v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Rodabaugh v. TekusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Sills v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Harris v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Selinsky v. OlsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Celli v. Sports Car Club of America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1972
  2. Di Sandro v. GriffithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. Welch v. GardnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Duenas v. DomingoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API