Mullia v. Ye Planry Building Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been incurred by plaintiff as a result of defendants’ negligence in operating an automobile which collided with one owned by the former. Defendants filed separate answers, denying the alleged acts of negligence, and, in addition to its answer, Ye Planry Building Company filed a cross-complaint, wherein it alleged that by reason of plaintiff’s negligence it had incurred damages therein set forth, which allegations the court found to be untrue.
The court found in favor of plaintiff upon the issues tendered in the complaint, upon which…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reynolds v. BuckSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Stephenson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Branch v. International & Great Northern Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1898
- Stewart v. BaruchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Williams v. TingeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Maupin v. SolomonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Hunter v. First State Bank of MorriltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Martinelli v. BondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Hanchett v. WiseleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Rock v. OrlandoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.