Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doran v. City & County of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1955No. Docket Nos. S.F. 19190, 19191Published

Fitz-Gerald Ames, Sr., and Harold A. Galloway for Appellants.

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent.

I cannot agree with the majority opinion for several reasons. The first of these reasons is that the facts have not been fairly stated. In determining the propriety of the order granting a new trial and of the refusal to give a requested jury instruction in these cases, the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. (Rodabaugh v. Tekus, 39 Cal.2d 290 [246 P.2d 663]; Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614 [255 P.2d 785].) The appeal in these cases is presented on settled statements of facts submitted by plaintiffs with amendments proposed by…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Herbert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Girdner v. Union Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Gray v. BrinkerhoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953

24 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