Legal Opinion

Rosenthal v. Harris Motor Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 10, 1953No. Civ. 19294PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCOTT (Robert H.), J. pro tem.

Defendants Harris appeal from judgment for plaintiffs based upon a jury verdict. Defendant Shinn does not appeal. This action grew out of a collision between plaintiffs’ Nash automobile and defendants’ De Soto driven by Miss Shinn. Appellants concede that “the evidence was rather clear that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Inez Shinn in driving the De Soto Coupe at a high rate of speed on the wrong side of a three-lane highway where it collided with plaintiffs’ Nash automobile on the west shoulder of the highway. There was also…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Burgess v. CahillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Ferroni v. Pacific Finance Corp.California Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Etienne v. KendallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Leplat v. Raley Wiles Auto SalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Weinberg v. WhiteboneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. McCartney v. Commission on Judicial QualificationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Stoddart v. PeirceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Consolidated FreightwaysCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  4. Wiley v. EasterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. Cushman v. CushmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

11 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