Legal Opinion
Leibman v. Curtis
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 29, 1955No. Civ. 21137PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Having been denied damages in his action for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals. He demands a reversal on the grounds that (1) the verdict was contrary to the evidence; (2) erroneous instructions were prejudicial; (3) erroneous rulings prevented his having a fair trial; (4) he was prejudiced by the court’s disputing his testimony from the bench; (5) the court unfairly accused him of attempting to communicate to one witness the testimony of another.
While it would be interesting to explore all the questions raised by appellant and to consider all the views of respondent with…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hoel v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Lombardi v. California Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
- De Roulet v. MitchelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- People v. WismerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Story v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mary M. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Poet v. Traverse City Osteopathic HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 1989
- Noteboom v. SavinOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- Park City Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- People v. CalioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.