Legal Opinion

Parsons v. Easton

California Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1921No. S. F. No. 8831PublishedCited by 43 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an appeal hy the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of six thousand dollars.

The action was instituted by the plaintiffs, as father and mother and heirs at law of one Jay Parsons, to recover dam ages from the defendant on account of the death of said Jay Parsons, which, it is alleged, was the result of defendant’s negligence. The defendant assigns error in denying his motion for a nonsuit, and he also claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the allegation that the death of Jay Parsons was caused by the defendant’s negligence, and that the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bond v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Munro v. Pacific Coast Dredging & Reclamation Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Beeson v. Green Mountain Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Redfield v. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Williams v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Krouse v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Horwich v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Gray v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Powers v. Board of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Canavin v. Pacific Southwest AirlinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

38 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