Legal Opinion

Holman v. Viko

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1958No. Civ. 22845; Civ. 22846Published

1Opinion of the Court

161 Cal.App.2d 87 (1958)

FLORINE HOLMAN, Appellant,

v.

PAUL E. VIKO, Respondent.

Civ. No. 22845.

California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Two.

June 4, 1958.

Zeman, Hertzberg & Schekman for Appellants.

Parker, Stanbury, Reese & McGee and Kenneth R. Garrett for Respondent.

ASHBURN, J.

Appeals from judgments for defendant in two companion personal injury actions. The cases were tried together before a jury and plaintiffs base their appeals upon alleged errors in instructions. Counsel claim error (1) in instructing the jury that violation of section 80.39 of Los Angeles Municipal Code would…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Buckley v. ChadwickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Brandelius v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Girdner v. Union Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953

40 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