Legal Opinion

Brush v. Kurstin

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 16, 1936No. Civ. 10630PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McCOMB, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal by:

A. Defendant Morris A. Kurstin from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for damages in the sum of $4,697.50 after a trial before a jury;

B. Defendant Bernice Kurstin from an order granting plaintiff a new trial on the issue of damages solely.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to plaintiff (Ah Gett v. Carr, 3 Cal. App. 47, 48 [84 Pac. 458]), the facts in the instant case are:

Plaintiff at approximately 10:15 P. M., December 17, 1934, approached the southwest corner of Wilshire and Rampart Boulevards in the city of Los Angeles. Looking west on Wilshire…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Rush v. LagomarsinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. KiefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Leavens v. Pinkham & McKevittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Meyers v. BradfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Phipps v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  2. Garcia v. San Gabriel Ready MixtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Holland v. KodimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Welch v. SinkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Hamasaki v. FlothoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

3 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