Legal Opinion

Hoffmann v. Lane

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 8, 1936No. Civ. 9518; Civ. 9564PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries received by him as the result of the negligent operation by defendant Joe Brasesco of an auto truck owned by the defendant James Lane. The jury returned a verdict awarding plaintiff damages against defendant Brasesco-in the sum of $5,000 and against defendant Lane in the same amount. Upon plaintiff’s motion the court granted a new trial as to the defendant Brasesco upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict.

Defendant Brasesco appeals from this order granting a new trial.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. J. M. Hamilton & Co. v. PrescottTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Stotler ex rel. Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  4. Fowden v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Kent v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sales Corp.California Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Boynton v. McKalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Geist v. MooreIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
  4. McNear v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Wilcox v. SwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

19 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