Legal Opinion

Fogarty v. Southern Pacific Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1907No. L.A. No. 1712PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. William F. Herrin, P. F. Dunne, and W. S. Spencer, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the Court

A rehearing was granted in this case, after decision in Department, principally because of the complaint of plaintiff that no reason had been assigned for the reversal as to the defendants Nelson and Waters, employees of the principal defendant and fellow-servants of the plaintiff. Upon the reargument, plaintiff's counsel, while urging that the judgments and orders should be affirmed as to the railroad company, stipulated that in the event of reversal as to it, the judgments and orders should also be reversed as to the other defendants. We are satisfied that this course should be adopted.

On…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Luman v. Golden Ancient Channel Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Vizelich v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Kevern v. Providence Gold & Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Thomas v. German Gen. Benevolent Soc'yCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Devens v. GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Akers v. CowanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. Tucker v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. First Nat. Bank of Wetumka v. NolenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

4 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