Legal Opinion

Horton v. Stoll

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 18, 1935No. Civ. 9294PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Action for damages for personal injuries. The injuries sustained by plaintiff Maxine Libby Horton, a pedestrian, were alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant automobile driver. The case went to trial before the court sitting with a jury. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved for a nonsuit on the grounds: (1) that plaintiff had failed to show defendant was negligent, and (2) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. The court found in accord with defendant’s contention, withdrew the cáse from the jury, and granted a judgment of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Burgesser v. Bullock'sCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Finkle v. TaitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Spring v. TawaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. Bence v. Teddy's TaxiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Mundy v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Fischer v. KeenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Taha v. FinegoldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Hoppe v. BradshawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Flores v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1936

9 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