Legal Opinion
King v. Emerson
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 15, 1930No. Docket Nos. 3876, 3877, 3878PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The appeal of defendant Fairfield is based upon the sole contention that the right of the guest in this case to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile collision was destroyed by section 141 3/4 of the California Vehicle Act of 1929 (Stats. 1929, p. 1580). In our original opinion, this point was decided adversely to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Callet v. AliotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bastajian v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Carpenter v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Carter v. J. W. Silver Trucking Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Lauchere v. LambertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Livesay v. DeibertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.