Legal Opinion

Madigan v. O. A. Hale & Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 16, 1928No. Docket No. 6233PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered pursuant to the verdict of a jury. The action was to recover damages on account of personal injury alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant. A statement of the case follows.

The plaintiff at the date of the injury was a salesman engaged in the delivery of nine cases of groceries to the defendant company. The latter operates a large store in the city of San Jose. The goods sold are not manufactured on the premises, but the business conducted is that of retailing merchandise…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
  2. Schmidt v. BauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Kelley v. Hodge Transportation SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Brinkworth v. Sam Seelig Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. Corbett v. SpanosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. VIRGINIA CHANCE v. Lawry's, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Smith v. Pickwick Stages SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Buckingham v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Jones v. BridgesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Thompson v. B. F. Goodrich Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941

10 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