Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby

California Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1955No. S. F. 19238Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent.

I had heretofore thought that at least one rule of law remained firmly fixed in the jurisprudence of this state: that a party litigant was, at the very least, entitled to have the jury correctly instructed as to the law as it related to his particular lawsuit. The majority opinion frankly admits that there is no dispute as to what the applicable rule of law is; that plaintiff was entitled to instructions in conformity with the rule; that the jury was clearly misinformed by the court as to that rule of law.

The evidence was sharply conflicting as to whether the dog had dangerous…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Sills v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  3. McGowan v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Ritchey v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Rideau v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

10 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