Legal Opinion

Montijo v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 28, 1931No. Docket No. 356PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

In 1925 appellant was the owner of a four-passenger cabin airplane of the biplane type. Respondent was engaged in producing moving pictures. In the fall of 1925 respondent was filming a picture known as “Partners Again”, one of a “Potash and Perlmutter” series. The plot of the story included an act which involved an airplane and an automobile rushing toward each other at rapid speeds with the airplane avoiding a collision by zooming over the automobile and just missing it. This was characterized as a “stunt” which was intended to give a “thrill” to an audience by the apparent and actual…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Green v. SouleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Lammers v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Jamison v. San Jose & Santa Clara RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Stephens v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1962
  2. Dicken v. SoutherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Steers v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API