Legal Opinion

Popejoy v. Hannon

California Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1951No. L. A. 21532PublishedCited by 89 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

H. H. Hannon, S. P. Hannon and Helen Hannon are partners doing business as Mutual Molding and Lumber Company. II. Sugarman, who conducted a trucking business on his own account, was employed by the Hannons as foreman of their lumberyard. Mac Wade Popejoy worked for Sugarman as a truck driver. Although his trucking business was an independent enterprise, the Hannons permitted Sugarman to have a telephone in the lumberyard which was listed in the name of Sugarman Trucking Company.

Popejoy sued for damages for personal injuries sustained on the premises of the partnership. The appeal from the…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Baugh v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Oettinger v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Crane v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Bradley v. RosenthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Davenport v. StrattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944

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

3Cited by89 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  3. Duprey v. ShaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Herrero v. AtkinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. McDonald v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1955

84 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