Legal Opinion

Espinosa v. Haslam

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 29, 1935No. Civ. 10067PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRICKE, J., pro tem.

Action for the death of a son, Raymond, twenty years of age, by reason of the wrongful act of defendant, brought under the authority of section 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that “a father, or, in ease of his death or desertion of his family, the mother, may maintain an action for the injury or death of a minor child”.

This action was commenced February 8, 1934. It appears that on October 3, 1933, Mary Espinosa, the wife of respondent and mother of deceased, commenced a similar action against appellant, predicating her right to do so upon the alleged…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Frazzini v. CableCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Burge v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Adkison v. AdkisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1970
  3. House v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Adkison v. AdkisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1970
  5. Burge v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953

1 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