Cruzen v. Wilcox
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
This appeal was brought by the plaintiff following his unsuccessful appeal to the jury to award him a verdict for the damages he suffered as a result of a collision between his automobile and an automobile driven by one defendant and owned by the other. We find no reason to reverse the judgment.
Three grounds are presented by the plaintiff in support of his appeal. The first, as given in his statement of questions involved, is: “Misconduct of the court supported by undenied affidavits.is assigned.” As the only affidavits we have discovered are categorically and emphatically…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kienlen v. HoltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Moore v. ReCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Driscoll v. ShippCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Lowenbruck v. StiglmeierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
3Cited by5 opinions
- Strandt v. CannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Blanton v. CurryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Westcott v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Dawson v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Strandt v. CannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938