Legal Opinion
Purefoy v. Pacific Automobile Indemnity Exchange
California Supreme Court
Decided December 31, 1935No. L. A. 14041PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*83SEAWELL, J.
Plaintiff J. W. Purefoy recovered judgment against W. S. Austin and Jack Austin, his minor son, in the amount of $2,800, for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of the negligent operation by Jack Austin of an automobile owned by W. S. Austin. Thereafter plaintiff commenced this action to recover the amount of said judgment from defendant Pacific Automobile Indemnity Exchange, which had issued a policy of liability insurance to W. S. Austin. The court below rendered judgment for defendant, based on findings that the insured, W. S. Austin, had violated conditions of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Hynding v. Home Accident InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Malmgren v. Southwestern Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Jefferson Realty Co. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Goorberg v. the Western Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Campbell v. Allstate Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Standard Acc. Ins. Co. Of Detroit, Mich. v. Winget Winget v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. Of Detroit, MichCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Val's Painting & Drywall, Inc. v. Allstate InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Northwestern Title Security Co. v. FlackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.