Legal Opinion

Hammel v. Keehn

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 6, 1937No. Civ. 11136PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

In this action for damages caused by the negligent driving of an automobile by defendant Keehn, the evidence, even including that newly discovered for the purposes of a motion for a new trial, was insufficient to reveal the defendants Kaiser Brothers as the employers of Keehn, and hence liable for his carelessness. The trial court was not in error, therefore, in entering a judgment of nonsuit in favor of Kaiser Brothers. As no other error appears to warrant the order granting a new trial as to them, that order is without support and, on this appeal from it, must be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crouch v. Gilmore Oil Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Dibble v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Freiden v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Robinson v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. McNeil v. Board of RetirementCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Washko v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Montanya v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Skelton v. FeketeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

2 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