Legal Opinion

Langensand v. Obert

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 25, 1933No. Docket No. 4774PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

The actions above entitled arose out of one automobile accident, and were therefore consolidated for trial.

The plaintiffs in the action first above are husband and wife, and the plaintiff Zandrino, in the second action, was a passenger in the automobile driven by Peter Langensand. The case was tried by a jury and verdicts were returned in favor of the respective plaintiffs, in different amounts. Motion for new trial was denied and judgments entered. The appeal follows.

It is admitted there was a collision between the car driven by Langensand and the car owned by Obert and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Card v. BomsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Anstead v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Risdon v. YatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Gates v. PendletonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Vaughn v. JonasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Koch v. ElkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Arenstein v. California State Board of PharmacyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Convertible CoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Home Indemnity Co. of New York v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. of DetroitCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948

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