Legal Opinion

Kimball v. Whetzel

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 26, 1970No. Civ. 26809PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TAYLOR, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is the propriety of an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial for an error of law. Plaintiff filed this action for personal injuries sustained in a collision when her vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant. After the jury brought in a verdict for defendant, the court granted the motion for a new trial because it had failed to give an instruction based on Vehicle Code section 22110. Defendant argues that the order cannot be sustained as the error was not prejudicial and not objected to by plaintiff. We…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Malkasian v. IrwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Sweeney v. PozarelliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Holling v. ChandlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  4. Hoyt v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. Gillingham v. Greyhound Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1968

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sdorra v. DickinsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API