Legal Opinion

Raber v. Tumin

California Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1951No. L. A. 21530PublishedCited by 105 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries. Named as defendants are Saul Tumin, who was the lessee of a store in which the injuries were received, and Tumin’s employe Endriss, a carpenter. At the close of plaintiff’s case the court granted the defendants’ motions for nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. We conclude that as to both defendants the matter should have gone to the jury.

The granting of a motion for nonsuit is warranted “. . . when, and only when, disregarding conflicting evidence, and giving to plaintiff’s evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, indulging…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ybarra v. SpangardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Estate of LancesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Blumberg v. M. & T. IncorporatedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Dierman v. Providence HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Reese v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by105 opinions

  1. Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Seneris v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Casey v. ProctorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Palmquist v. MercerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954

100 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