Legal Opinion
Packer v. Wagner
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 9, 1930No. Docket No. 233PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WARMER, J., pro tem.
The court ordered the ahoveentitled actions consolidated for the purposes of trial, after a stipulation of counsel that the court might make such order, and both causes come here on the same record. The plaintiff in each action charges negligence. The answer denies the allegations of negligence and sets up a plea of contributory negligence. During the pendency of the action entitled Hartley C. Packer v. John E. Wagner, plaintiff Hartley C. Packer died, and by stipulation of counsel Armenia B. Packer, administratrix of the estate of Hartley C. Packer, deceased, was…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- People v. Tom WooCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Ryder v. BambergerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Smith v. Occidental & Oriental Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Donat v. DillonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Haase v. Central Union High School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Gackstetter v. Market Street Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
- Maus v. Scavenger Protective Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Pascoe v. PayneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Hayward Lumber & Investment Co. v. NaslundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.