Legal Opinion

Casey v. Proctor

California Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1963No. L. A. 26961PublishedCited by 101 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.

In this action for personal injuries, defendant alleged as a special affirmative defense that plaintiff had signed a release discharging him from all liability, and that the action was barred, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure *100section 597, this issue was tried before the ease on its merits. After the introduction of evidence, the trial court, on defendant’s motion, directed the jury to find, as a matter of law, that the release “is valid and binding and bars plaintiff from' any recovery in this action.” Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered upon this directed verdict.

The rules…

2Cases cited69 opinions

  1. Estate of LancesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Pimpinello v. Swift & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Borax Consolidated, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
  4. M. F. Kemper Construction Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Raber v. TuminCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by101 opinions

  1. Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Williams v. GlashTexas Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Winet v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Barrera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Howard v. Owens CorningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

96 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