Legal Opinion

Brimberry v. Dudfield Lumber Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1920No. S. F. No. 8968PublishedCited by 24 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. John G. Jury, Louis Oneal and Oneal & Sex for Appellants.

1Opinion of the CourtLawlor, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for one thousand two hundred dollars against the defendants, Dud-field Lumber Company, a corporation, and Joseph A. Jury, and in favor of the plaintiff, John H. Brimberry, in an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by him as the result of negligence on the part of defendant Jury in the course of Jury’s employment by the defendant corporation. The record before us is presented under the alternative method.

The following facts are undisputed. Jury was the secretary of the Dudfield Lumber Company, whose offices were in the city of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chamberlain v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Rahn v. Singer Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1885

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Ryan v. FarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. May v. FarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Kruse v. White BrothersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Morris v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Limerick v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924

19 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