Legal Opinion

Hirsch v. James S. Remick Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 26, 1918No. Civ. No. 1899PublishedCited by 14 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

The action is for the recovery of damages arising from the alleged negligence of defendants whereby plaintiff’s testate was injured.

It is alleged in the complaint that defendants were, on December 24, 1915, conducting a store at the southwest corner of Eleventh and J Streets, Sacramento; that, on the Eleventh Street front of said store and under the pavement or sidewalk defendants maintained an area or basement, and, for the purpose of lowering and raising articles of merchandise to and from the floor of said area to the surface of the sidewalk, defendants constructed and used a shaft in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Munro v. Pacific Coast Dredging & Reclamation Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Slaughter v. Goldberg, Bowen & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  3. Ruiz v. Santa Barbara Gas & Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Boyle v. Coast Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  5. Aguirre v. AlexanderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Vaughn v. JonasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. McClure v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. City & County of San Francisco v. Ho SingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Cockerell v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Neuber v. Royal Realty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948

9 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