Legal Opinion

Hickenbottom v. Jeppesen

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 22, 1956No. Civ. 16786PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD (Fred B.), J.

In this action for damages for injuries received in an automobile collision at the intersection of Alemany and Skyline Boulevards, San Francisco, verdict and judgment were for the defendant. Plaintiff-appellants claim (1) the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that defendant was negligent and plaintiff not, and (2) erroneous rulings during the course of the trial.(1) As to the negligence of the respective parties, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. The evidence which plaintiffs invoke merely produced a conflict which it was the function of the triers of the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Parker v. WomackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Kauffman v. De MutiisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Johnston v. OrlandoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. Pattisson v. CavanaghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Temple v. De MirjianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. McDonald v. Foster Memorial HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. Williams v. LambertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  3. Perrotti v. SampsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Stafford v. AlexanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Whinery v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1970

3 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