Legal Opinion
Kauffman v. De Mutiis
California Supreme Court
Decided February 4, 1948No. Sac. 5891PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.
The propriety of an order granting a new trial upon the ground that a witness subpoenaed by the plaintiff did not appear for examination is challenged by the defendant, who obtained a verdict in his favor. The question for decision concerns the construction and application of section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as it authorizes a new trial because of “accident or surprise.”
The action is for damages because of personal injuries received in an automobile collision. Rudolph Erends, a locomotive engineer, witnessed the accident. Eight days before the trial, he was interviewed by…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Mazzotta v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
- McGuire v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Schellhous v. BallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- People v. ToroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- People Ex Rel. Dept. of Public Works v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- McCown v. SpencerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Julien v. BarkerIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- Noble v. TweedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.