Legal Opinion

Grimes v. Richfield Oil Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 12, 1930No. Docket No. 134PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMES, J., pro tem.

This is an action for personal injury. The negligence upon which the action is predicated, as disclosed by the allegations in the complaint and the evidence in support thereof, consists of defendant’s failure to maintain lights upon the rear end of a combination of vehicles, consisting of a truck and trailer, which, it is claimed, was standing on the paved or improved portion of a public highway before sunrise, during the early morning hours of the day of the accident.

The testimony of the respondent may be summarized as follows: That on the fifteenth day of March, 1928, he…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. White v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Barton v. Studebaker Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Harris v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Moss v. H. R. Boynton Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Pacific Paving Co. v. VizelichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Anthony v. HobbieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. McClure v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Dalley v. Mid-Western Dairy Products Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Hatch v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1958
  5. Priebe v. SinclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949

11 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