Meek v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Frank Karr, R. C. Gortner, and A. W. Ashburn, Jr., for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.
Action by plaintiffs as husband and wife to recover damages for personal injuries to the'latter alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence.
The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs, pursuant to which judgment was entered in their favor for the sum of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars, from which, and an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
The grounds upon which appellant seeks a reversal are: First, want of sufficient evidence to support the verdict; second, erroneous instructions given to the jury; third, that the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Morgan v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Kimberly v. HowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Selleck v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Metropolitan St. R. R. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Kimberly v. . HowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Darling v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Deshotel v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Acadia, California, Ltd. v. HerbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Earl v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Bechtold v. Bishop & Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1940
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.