Legal Opinion

Mangino v. Bonslett

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 27, 1930No. Docket No. 7494PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRESTON (H. L.), J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial, after a verdict of a jury-in favor of defendant. The action is one for damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident.

The order granting the new trial reads in part as follows: “The motion for a new trial in behalf of plaintiffs in the above-entitled case, coming on regularly to be heard, and said motion having been submitted to the court for decision, and the court having very carefully considered the points urged by counsel, and having a clear recollection of the con-, duct of the trial,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Citti v. BavaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Lafargue v. United Railroad of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Williamson v. HardyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. Arnold v. California Portland Cement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Keena v. United Railroads of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Wills v. JJ Newberry Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Minnick v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
  3. M. P. Moller, Inc. v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Weaver v. Shell Oil Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Ralph v. MacMarr StoresMontana Supreme Court · 1936

11 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