Meads v. Deener
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The plaintiff had judgment against the defendants for damages based upon injuries received in an automobile collision occurring on the twenty-first day of May, 1931. The collision took place on Folsom Boulevard between Forty-seventh and Forty-eighth Streets in the city of Sacramento, at about 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon. Just prior to the collision the plaintiff was driving easterly and the defendant Deener was driving an automobile westerly on the boulevard. The record shows that Deener was the agent of the defendant Wheatley, in transacting business for him in the city of Sacramento.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Hatzakorzian v. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Mathers v. BotsfordSupreme Court of Florida · 1923
- Zarzana v. Neve Drug Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Holsaple v. Menominee Sup'ts of PoorMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Duffy v. CortesiIllinois Supreme Court · 1954
- Pittman v. SatherIdaho Supreme Court · 1947
- Phillips v. StockmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961
- Scoville v. KeglorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Maire v. Minidoka County Motor Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1940
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.