Legal Opinion

Merrill v. Finigan

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 30, 1933No. Docket No. 7889PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $4,892.70, against the defendant B. & H. Transportation Company and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. The appellants’ brief in reality is a duplicate of the reporter’s transcript, the object being apparently to secure here what the court below denied, a trial de novo. This hardly fits into the scheme of appellate practice. However, we will discuss the case as it is presented.

The controversy arises out of an automobile accident in which three different automobiles are involved…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sawdey v. Producers' Milk Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Herron v. Smith Bros., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Craig v. BoyesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Haase v. Central Union High School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  2. Rozzen v. BlumenfeldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Agovino v. KunzeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Bogan v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API