Legal Opinion

Spinazzola v. Margolis

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 10, 1962No. Civ. 25767PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.

Dave Margolis and Prank Wisner were named codefendants in an action brought by Paula I. Spinazzola for damages for personal injuries arising out of an intersection collision between two automobiles. Plaintiff’s two minor children also sued through their mother as their guardian ad litem. A jury trial was had in which a verdict was returned in favor of both defendants and against plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and she now appeals from the judgment and from the order denying her motion for a new trial. That order is not appealable and the appeal therefrom is dismissed.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Primm v. PrimmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Zuckerman v. Underwriters at Lloyd'sCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Torres v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. El Rio Oils Ltd. v. Pacific Coast Asphalt Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Batchelor v. CaslavkaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pittman v. BoivenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. In Re: El Dorado Improvement Corporation, Debtor. Sundt Corporation v. Dynamic Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  3. Pittman v. BoivenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API