Vance v. De Long
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J. pro tem.*
The plaintiff appealed from the judgment, awarding him nothing, that followed as a matter of course a jury’s verdict of “for the dependant . . . and against the plaintipf . . . .” On his appeal he makes but one contention that the trial court prejudiced his case before the jury by the giving of a certain instruction. The plaintiff has failed, however, to make any of the evidence a part of the record on appeal, so we are in no position to judge, first, if it was error to give the instruction and, then, if it was error, whether it was prejudicial, warranting a reversal. As a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brant v. California Dairies, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Armenta v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Hamlin v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Sunset Milling & Grain Co. v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kostecky v. HenryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980