Coakley v. Ajuria
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSea Well, J.
— This appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit. The trial court’s ruling must, • therefore, be examined in the light of the uniform decisions of this state, too numerous to require citations, which hold, in effect, that every inference of fact and intendment of law must be liberally construed in favor of sustaining the case made by plaintiff, to the end that causes may be determined upon their merits.
Plaintiff’s intestate, John A. Coakley, a plasterer by occupation, was her husband, and both resided at the city of Marysville, this state. The defendant, Lucio Ajuria, was also a resident of said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Needham v. San Francisco & San José R.R.California Supreme Court · 1869
- Haug v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Hine v. BeldenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858
- Trumbull v. EricksonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
- Vallejo v. RandallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by42 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Yarrow v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- People v. MegladderyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Buckhantz v. R. G. Hamilton & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
- Oldis v. La Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance MutuelleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.