Earl v. San Francisco Bridge Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Solano County, and from an order denying a new trial. A. J. Buckles, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT,
interesting argument of appellant is based largely upon the theory that we must discredit and reject the testimony in favor of respondent’s contention. It should hardly be necessary to add that we are not permitted to do so, since the statements therein contained are not improbable. Indeed, after a careful reading of the entire record, we can only say that at most a substantial conflict is presented as to the material elements of the alleged cause of action.
The facts, as substantially stated and shown by respondent, are as follows: Appellant at the time of the accident was engaged in…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Giraude v. Elec. Improvement Co. of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Crabbe v. Mammoth Channel Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
- O'Connor v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1914
- Tedford v. Los Angeles Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Moreno v. Los Angeles Transfer Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Union Oil Co. v. RideoutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Voter v. NewsaltNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929