Secreto v. Carlander
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
McCOMB, J. —
Prom an order granting plaintiff Lois Jean Secreto’s motion for a new trial unless defendants consented that the verdict and judgment of the jury in the sum of $150 be increased to $1200, defendant Carlander appeals.
These are the essential facts:
A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Lois Jean Secreto in an action for damages in the sum of $150. Plaintiff filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial, reading as follows:
“TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEPENDANT, ROT J. CARLANDER, AND TO GEORGE L. GREER, HIS ATTORNEY:
“YOU AND EACH OP YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above named…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lucerne Country Club v. BealCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Adamson v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Christy v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Starkweather v. EddyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Taylor v. Northern Electric Ry. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
- Cox v. Tyrone Power Enterprises Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Dorsey v. BarbaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Lamoreux v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1957
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.