Elford v. Hiltabrand
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
*75DORAN, J.
I dissent. It is my conviction that the questions asked on voir dire were highly prejudicial and that the court’s refusal either to declare a mistrial or grant defendant’s motion for a new trial on account thereof was error.
It is conceded in the prevailing opinion that, “Attempts to impress a jury with the idea that an insurance company and not the individual defendant may be required to respond to such damages as the jury may assess are not looked upon with favor by the courts.” And the prevailing opinion further recites, “the cases are harmonious in holding that all such questions…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lafargue v. United Railroad of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Arnold v. California Portland Cement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Dermer v. PistoresiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- McVea v. NickolsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Hoyt v. J. E. Davis Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.