Rudat v. Carithers
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
JAMISON, J., pro tem.
This action was for damages for injuries resulting from the collision of two motor vehicles operated by plaintiff and defendant. It was tried by the court with the aid of a jury and a verdict was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment was thereupon rendered for defendant. From this judgment plaintiff has appealed.
The sole question to be determined on this appeal is whether or not the court erred in excluding the testimony of a witness produced by plaintiff, one Frank Rieber, an alleged physicist, to explain the nature and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sappenfield v. Main Street & Agricultural Park RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Vedder v. BireleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Fishman v. SilvaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Johnston v. PeairsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Corcoran v. WardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Trust v. Arden Farms Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- People v. MurrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Francis v. SauveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Burch v. Valley Motor Lines, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Johnson v. Western Air Express Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.