Legal Opinion

Creamer v. Cerrato

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 18, 1934No. Civ. 9116PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, J., pro tem.

Appellant sued to recover damages for personal injuries, received by her as the result of a collision between her automobile, parked on its right side of an avenue, and an automobile truck owned by respondent Y. Boido, and operated, on its wrong side, by respondent John Cerrato, his employee. After trial, the jury returned its verdict in favor of respondents. From the judgment entered thereon, she appeals, assigning as error six instructions given at respondents’ request.

The following summary of the material testimony will suffice for a proper consideration of her criticism…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Raymond v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Gritsch v. Pickwick Stages SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. Leslie v. CatanzaroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Bauhofer v. CrawfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. Davis v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Polk v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Parker v. WomackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Throop v. FE Young and CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Jolley v. ClemensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Merry v. Knudsen Creamery Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949

17 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