Legal Opinion

Bennett v. Hardy

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1930No. Docket No. 429PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMES, J., pro tem.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from a collision of two automobile trucks. It is based upon the alleged negligence of an employee of defendant in operating said truck. Defend ant in his answer denied negligence on his part, and pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $15,840, and from the judgment entered thereon defendant prosecutes this appeal. Appellant first contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  2. May v. FarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Smith v. Occidental & Oriental Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Aldrich v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  5. In re Estate of RedfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. De Arman v. ConnellyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  2. Formosa v. Yellow Cab Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. People v. McReynoldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Muir v. Cheney Bros.California Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Wallace v. SpeierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

3 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