Oberlander v. Fixen & Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The appellant recovered judgment in the -court below for damages (seventeen hundred and fifty dollars), resulting from her falling down a negligently constructed staircase leading from the defendant’s storeroom, where she had just heen employed by the defendant, to the basement. The court granted a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence; and the grounds urged for reversal are: 1. That the affidavits were not served or filed in time; 2. Want oí diligence on the part of defendant in preparation for trial; and 3. That the newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative.
The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Heintz v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Von Glahn v. BrennanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Levitsky v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Jones v. SingletonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- People v. StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- People v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Fries v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- People v. BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Cahill v. E. B. & A. L. Stone Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
- Brea v. McGlashanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.