Legal Opinion
Fleckner v. Dionne
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 20, 1949No. Civ. 14142PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGoodell, Acting P. J.
The demurrer of respondent Pangracs, sued as Richard Roe, was sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs declined to amend, and judgment was entered that plaintiffs take nothing as against Pangracs, from which this appeal was taken.
The complaint is in three counts. It alleges that the defendants so negligently operated their Ford sedan on El Camino Real as to cause it to collide with the automobile driven by Wilbur G. Fleekner. The first count is based on bodily injuries *247sustained by the latter and the second on injuries to Mrs. Fleckner.
The third count is the one by which respondent Pangracs…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Cruse v. AdenIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Hitson v. M. J. DwyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Seibel v. LeachWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Dunlap v. WagnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Demge v. FeiersteinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Rappaport v. NicholsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- Vesely v. SagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Cole v. RushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Pierce v. AlbaneseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
- Alegria v. PayonkIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.