Legal Opinion

Harvey Machine Co. v. Hatzel

California Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1960No. L. A. No. 25375PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.

The defendants, construction contractors, appeal from a judgment declaring that they are obligated to indemnify the plaintiffs by virtue of a hold harmless and indemnification clause contained in an agreement whereby the defendants, with other contractors, undertook to construct a new industrial plant in its entirety for the plaintiff Harvey Machine Company, Inc. The plaintiff Pacific Indemnity Company is Harvey’s insurer against “liability imposed by law.”

The cause as framed by the pleadings was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts. It appears therefrom that, pursuant…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vinnell Co. v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  2. City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Price v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. Goldman v. Ecco-Phoenix Electric Corp.California Supreme Court · 1964

43 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