Legal Opinion

Wickman v. Lowenstein

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 17, 1934No. Docket No. 9026PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McNUTT, J., pro tem.

F rom a judgment on verdict in a pedestrian plaintiff’s favor for injuries negligently inflicted by an automobile driven by defendants, the latter appeal for insufficiency of evidence and excessive damages.

At night, while plaintiff was walking westerly across San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, he was struck by an automobile of the defendant company driven southerly along the avenue by its employee, defendant Lowenstein, and was so injured that the jury awarded him damages for $17,500. After denial of successive motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment non obstante and new…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. White v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Keyes v. NimsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Russell v. RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Neilson v. HouleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Tucker v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hughes v. QuackenbushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  2. Hoppe v. BradshawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Hausken v. ComanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Hunter v. MichaelisUtah Supreme Court · 1948
  5. People Ex Rel. Department of Water Resources v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

4 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