Legal Opinion

George v. Chaplin

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 3, 1929No. Docket No. 6744PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

An action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Georgie George and for the expense incurred in that connection by her husband.

The injuries arose out of an automobile accident, and were caused by the negligence of Robert Simmons, who is alleged to have been the agent and servant of appellants Chaplin. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and, a motion for a new trial having been denied, an appeal was taken from the judgment.

Appellants contend that the implied finding that Simmons was their servant is unsupported, and that the evidence shows that he…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Green v. SouleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Press Publishing Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Western Indemnity Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Perkins v. BlauthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Barton v. Studebaker Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. American Savings Life Insurance v. RiplingerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933
  2. Burlingham v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Schaller v. Industtrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Curcic v. Nelson Display Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Cook v. SangerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

12 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