Legal Opinion

Tumelty v. Peerless Stages

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 31, 1929No. Docket Nos. 6560 and 6561PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GOODELL, J., pro tem.

These appeals are taken by the defendants from an order granting, in part, plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff sued for damages in the sum of twenty-one thousand six hundred dollars alleged to have been suffered through the negligence of both defendants, Peerless Stages and J. H. Asselin. The plaintiff was riding in the automobile of the defendant Asselin, as his guest, with members of his family, when a collision occurred between the Asselin ear, proceeding southerly on the highway near Milpitas, and an autostage of the defendant stage company proceeding…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Pearl v. PearlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Benton v. . CollinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  4. Donnatin v. Union Hardware & Metal Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
  5. Jarrett v. High Point Trunk & Bag Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Paul Harris Furniture Co. v. MorseIllinois Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Leipert v. HonoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Amore v. Di RestaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Crandall v. McGrathCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Chinnis v. Pomona Pump Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940

14 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