Cummings v. Kendall
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
PARKER, J., pro tem.
Defendants appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. The case involves an automobile accident and was tried by the court, sitting without a jury.
Heretofore respondent moved to dismiss the appeal and the opinion of this court in denying the motion is found in 34 California Appellate. Beports (2d series), at page 379 [93 Pac. (2d) 633],
Appellant at this stage of the appeal places much reliance on the language of the court in denying the motion to dismiss and inclines to the contention that the law of the case was therein announced. We are not in accord with…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Hamilton v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Rideout v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Sawdey v. Producers' Milk Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Cummings v. KendallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
3Cited by29 opinions
- Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1950
- Haft v. Lone Palm HotelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Azure Ex Rel. Marchington v. City of BillingsMontana Supreme Court · 1979
- Mathews v. MillsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.