Legal Opinion
Holibaugh v. Ito
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 23, 1937No. Civ. 11357PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.
—The above-entitled actions to recover damages for personal injuries were consolidated for trial and plaintiffs appeal from judgments in favor of defendants after trial by jury. The questions raised by both appeals will be disposed of in this opinion.
Viewing the evidence most favorable to defendants (Hind v. Oriental Products Co., Inc., 195 Cal. 655, 661 [235 Pac. 438]; Dreyer v. Cole, 210 Cal. 339, 341 [292 Pac. 123]), the facts in the instant case are:
April 14, 1935, plaintiff James J. Holibaugh was driving an automobile owned by plaintiff Hattie Mathews, in which she was riding at the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- People v. GosdenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Hind v. Oriental Products Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Berlin v. ViolettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Prato v. SnyderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Huetter v. AndrewsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Kalfus v. FrazeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Powell v. BartmessCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Beck v. KesslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Hontou v. OrvisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.