Berryman v. Quinlan
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
WARD, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff, by her guardian ad litem, brought suit against the defendants for personal injuries, alleging wilful misconduct. A jury returned a verdict against the plaintiff. Defendants appeal from the trial court’s order granting a motion for a new trial, based on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.
Appellants in their opening brief exhaustively quote and argue almost persuasively from cited wilful misconduct cases in an effort to uphold their contention that defendant Quinlan, the driver of the car at the time of the accident, was not guilty of wilful misconduct,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Weber v. PinyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Emery v. Pacific Employers InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Hallock v. JaudinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Reid v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Chandler v. QuinlanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gillespie v. RawlingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Gillespie v. RawlingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Van Fleet v. HeylerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Halbert v. BerlingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.