Legal Opinion

Tingey v. E. F. Houghton & Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1947No. L. A. 19972; L. A. 19973PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

These cases involve identical issues of law and fact, both arising out of an explosion of chemicals sold by defendant to the Pray Tool and Reamer Company. In the first case the widow and children of Tingey, an employee of the tool company, sought damages for his wrongful death, and in the second case, Hulsizer, also an employee, claimed damages for injuries suffered in the same accident. Defendant has appealed from judgments based on verdicts in both cases, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support the implied finding of negligence.

The testimony is conflicting in many respects…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Blank v. CoffinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Maize v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. Farley v. Edward E. Tower Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  4. Genesee County Patrons Fire Relief Ass'n v. L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
  5. Stultz v. Benson Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co.California Supreme Court · 1973
  2. In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1984
  3. Love v. WolfCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hospital Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Huth v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947

22 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