Legal Opinion
Hoel v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 17, 1955No. Civ. 20739PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ASHBURN, J. pro tem. *
Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting a new trial in a jury case in which they secured a verdict for $10,000. The action is one for wrongful death of Arup C. Hoel, brought by his heirs under the Public Liability Act of 1923, now codified in Government Code, sections 53050 and 53051.
The order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial does not specify insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict as a ground upon which granted, nor does it specify any other ground. It is therefore conclusively presumed that the order was not based on insufficiency of the…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Johnson v. LutzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Bauman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Ballard v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Douglass v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- People v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- People v. SamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Malkasian v. IrwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.