Legal Opinion
Haverstick v. Southern Pacific Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 25, 1934No. Civ. 5196PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
Franklin Allen, now deceased, the plaintiff, had judgment against the defendant in this action, for and on account of the destruction of property and personal injuries alleged to have been suffered on account of a fire negligently allowed to escape from a car belonging to the defendant.
The facts disclosed by the record show that on or about the nineteenth day of May, 1931, the defendant was operating what is called the shuttle train between lone, in Amador County, and Galt, in Sacramento County. This train makes one trip each way, daily. The route traversed is across rolling valleys and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Pullman Palace Car Co. v. LaackIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Illinois Central Railroad v. SilerIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Fent v. Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Remsberg v. Hackney Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Thompson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Osborn v. City of WhittierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Giorgi v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- Wolff v. LightNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
- Bilyeu v. Standard Freight LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.