Lehman v. Richfield Oil Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.
From an order granting defendants’ motion for a nonsuit at the conclusion of appellant’s evidence, she prosecutes this appeal against respondent Holtzman only.
The substance of appellant’s evidence is as follows: Respondent operates a filling station and parking lot on Grand Avenue in Los Angeles. He maintains for profit a telephone booth for public use. On a busy afternoon, May 7, 1951, about 3:30 o’clock, appellant and her companion, David Eiehenlaub, drove to a point on Grand Avenue from which for 10 minutes she and David kept the booth under surveillance and observed the movements of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hatfield v. Levy BrothersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Raber v. TuminCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Hamilton v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Louie v. Hagstrom's Food Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Girvetz v. Boys' Market, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Isaacson v. Husson CollegeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
- Oldenburg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Virtue v. FlyntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Farrier v. LevinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Frazier v. Yor-Way Market, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.