Legal Opinion
Dewees v. Kuntz
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 28, 1933No. Docket No. 731PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarks, Acting P. J.
Since this action was instituted appellant has married and her name is now Dorothy Mullineaux. This is the second appeal in this case. The first judgment was reversed on the ground that the evidence did not show any negligence on the part of appellant. The facts appearing on the first trial are stated in the earlier opinion, Dewees v. Kuntz, 106 Cal. App. 665 [289 Pac. 912], and we will not repeat here, those which are common to both records. We will confine ourselves to a discussion of evidence omitted from the second record, but which appears in the first, and new facts developed in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Merrill v. Los Angeles Gas Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Griffith v. Oak Ridge Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
- Sichterman v. R. M. Hollingshead Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- Condon v. AnsaldiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Coulter v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hill v. PeresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- McKay v. HedgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Caperon v. TuttleUtah Supreme Court · 1941
- Standard Oil Co. v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Rasmussen v. Fresno Traction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.