Legal Opinion

Francis v. Riddle

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 8, 1936No. Civ. 1757PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

This is an action for damages arising out of a collision between a pedestrian and an automobile used as a laundry truck. After a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs the court granted a motion for a new trial and the plaintiffs have appealed from that order. For convenience, the plaintiff wife will be referred to as the appellant and the driver of the laundry truck as the respondent.

The order granting a new trial did not specify the insufficiency of the evidence as a ground therefor, and the question here raised is whether or not the verdict is against law for the reason that the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. White v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Sheldon v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Burgesser v. Bullock'sCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Finkle v. TaitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. Chase v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kalfus v. FrazeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. Brannock v. BromleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Jones v. BridgesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. Hall v. KaufmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Hine v. CarmichaelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API