Legal Opinion

Oberlander v. Fixen & Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 1900No. L.A. No. 679PublishedCited by 46 opinions

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

  1. Heintz v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Von Glahn v. BrennanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Levitsky v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Jones v. SingletonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  5. People v. StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. People v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Fries v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  3. People v. BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Cahill v. E. B. & A. L. Stone Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Brea v. McGlashanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

41 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