Legal Opinion

Genola v. Barnett

California Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 1939No. S. F. 16236PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PULLEN, J., pro tem.

This is an action for personal injuries to plaintiff who was struck, as she was attempting to cross a street between the intersections in a residential district in San Francisco, by a car owned by defendant Arthur A. Barnett and operated at the time by his wife.

At the close of plaintiff's case, a nonsuit was granted on the ground that, as a matter of law, defendant, the operator of the car, was not guilty of negligence, and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. From this order for non-suit and the judgment entered thereon this appeal was taken.

Reviewing the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. White v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Chase v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Varner v. SkovCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Brannock v. BromleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Meincke v. Oakland Garage, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Thad Richardson v. Eddie Lucas, Warden, Mississippi State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
  2. Watkins v. NuttingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Satariano v. SleightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Hoppe v. BradshawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Fuentes v. Lee LingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

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