Legal Opinion

Spriesterbach v. Holland

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 9, 2013No. B240348PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SUZUKAWA, J.

This appeal arises out of a collision between a bicycle ridden by plaintiff Micheál Spriesterbach and a car driven by defendant Janice Holland. Spriesterbach sued Holland for negligence, alleging that he suffered a serious shoulder injury as a result of the collision. The jury returned a verdict for Holland, finding by special verdict that she was not negligent.

Spriesterbach appeals from the resulting judgment and denial of his motion for new trial, urging that the trial court made two prejudicial instructional errors. Because we conclude that neither alleged error was…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
  2. People v. ValdezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. People v. MayfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Lundquist v. ReusserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Ramirez v. Plough, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Jackson v. AEG Live, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. Minnegren v. NozarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Harb v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  5. Vollaro v. LispiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014

6 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