Legal Opinion

Martinovich v. Wooley

California Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1900No. S.F. No. 1280PublishedCited by 25 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff sought to recover damages for an injury occasioned to her because of the defective condition of the sidewalk in front of defendants’ property. She stepped upon a decayed and rotten plank, which gave way, and she was injured by the fall. In the complaint it is alleged that the “planking was in such a rotten condition solely by rea son of the gross carelessness and negligence of the defendants.” It is further alleged "that said defendants, and each of them, as this plaintiff is informed and believes, had notice posted on the part of the city and county of San Francisco of and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Eustace v. JahnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Ex parte TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Sexton v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Haddad v. McDowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Schaefer v. LenahanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. v. City of South BendIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Aalwyn v. CobeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

20 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