Legal Opinion

Mosekian v. Ginsberg

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 21, 1932No. Docket No. 364PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMSON, J., pro tem.

This is an action brought by the heirs of Mosek Mosekian, deceased, to recover damages for his death alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant and respondent. The jury returned a verdict in the words and figures as follows: "We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find for the plaintiffs and against the defendants and assess plaintiffs’ damages in the sum of $0 (nothing).” The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered thereon and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The action arises out of a collision between two motor vehicles which…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pearl v. PearlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Donnatin v. Union Hardware & Metal Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
  3. Kaiser v. DaltoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Estate of BainbridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Hughes v. De MundCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Renfer v. SkaggsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. Tagney v. HoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  3. Piru Citrus Assn. v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Prout v. PerkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Annin v. Belridge Oil Employees Federal Credit UnionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

13 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