Legal Opinion

Conner v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 5, 1935No. Civ. 9556PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARD, J., pro tem.

Upon the date mentioned in the complaint plaintiff was going to work and stopped on a sidewalk for a few seconds near the intersection of public streets in the city of Berkeley. Defendant East Bay Municipal Utility District, a corporation, and codefendants and employees thereof, Storer and Klobas, were engaged in placing a connection in a certain water main at the intersection of the streets. Klobas was cutting chunks from a pig of lead preparatory to heating it to be used in sealing the connection. The tools used in this work were a ten-pound sledge hammer, and a type of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Burford v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Maede v. Oakland High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Sutliff v. Sweetwater Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Damgaard v. Oakland High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Katz v. HelbingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Zelayeta v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Stroud v. HansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Ocean Park Pier Amusement Corp. v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. Rufo v. N. B. C. National Broadcasting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. People v. BlevinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

8 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