Legal Opinion

Uhl v. Fertig

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 6, 1922No. Civ. No. 3616PublishedCited by 23 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the courh.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Plaintiffs were awarded judgment for damages. They alleged in their complaint that defendant operated in a negligent manner an automobile upon the public highway, with the result that it collided with a similar vehicle owned by the plaintiffs and damaged the latter. It was particularly alleged that the defendant’s car was being driven at a speed in excess of thirty-five miles per hour. The amount of the recovery allowed was the sum of $650, from which judgment the defendant has appealed.

San Fernando Boulevard, in the county of Los Angeles, is a paved thoroughfare twenty-four feet in width. It…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stephenson v. S. Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Diamond v. WeyerhaeuserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Finkle v. TaitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  4. Davis v. California Street Cable RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Miller v. StevensSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Jolley v. ClemensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Leo v. DunhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Hormovitis v. Mutual Lumber CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1960
  5. De La Torre v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

18 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