Legal Opinion

McCordic v. Crawford

California Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1943No. L. A. 18613PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, J.

Venice Pier is leased from the city of Venice by defendant Abbot-Kinney Company and is maintained and repaired by the latter. The carnival attractions on the pier are operated by concessionaires under contract with Abbot-Kinney Company. Defendant Samuel Crawford was authorized to operate a “Loopa” on the pier, under an oral agreement that the company receive 25 per cent of the gross receipts. The Loopa was somewhat like an old-fashioned swing, with a board suspended by steel rods from an axle some fifteen or twenty feet above the ground. It was so constructed that riders standing on the board…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Wodnik v. Luna Park Amusement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Johnstone v. Panama Pacific International Exposition Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Harvey v. MacHtigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Kahn v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Kraft v. LamptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Snyder v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Palmer v. GTE California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Knell v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Love v. WolfCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Kahn v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943

19 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