Legal Opinion

Secreto v. Carlander

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 3, 1939No. Civ. 12212PublishedCited by 31 opinions

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

  1. Lucerne Country Club v. BealCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  2. Adamson v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Christy v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Starkweather v. EddyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Taylor v. Northern Electric Ry. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Cox v. Tyrone Power Enterprises Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Dorsey v. BarbaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  5. Lamoreux v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1957

26 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