Leenders v. California Hawaiian Sugar Refining Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
DO CLING, J. pro tem.
Plaintiff recovered judgment for personal injuries, after a jury trial. On appeal defendant’s principal claim is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. There is little conflict in the evidence since defendant produced only two witnesses, a medical witness whose testimony was limited to evidence of the extent and- character of plaintiff’s injuries, and a maker of maps and diagrams whose testimony was concerned exclusively with a description of the premises where plaintiff’s injuries were incurred.
From the evidence introduced by the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Kauffman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Bauman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Hinds v. WheadonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Bone v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Hayden v. Paramount Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1939
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Biondini v. Amship Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Swartz v. Gale Webb Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2007
- Paxton v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Freitas v. Peerless Stages, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Phillips v. Ogle Aluminum Furniture, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1951
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.