Legal Opinion

Winston v. Hansell

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 19, 1958No. Civ. 17707PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.

Plaintiff, Flossie Winston, in a second amended complaint, attempted to state a cause of action against the city of San Francisco and against Rose Hansell for damages for personal injuries sustained by her when she fell on the public sidewalk in front of the Hansell property. The complaint purports to state two causes of action, the first against the city, and the second apparently against Rose Hansell 1 as the owner of the abutting property. The cause of action against the city is not involved on this appeal. Eose Hansell demurred generally to the second cause of action. The court sustained…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Peters v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Sexton v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Schaefer v. LenahanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Granucci v. ClaasenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Martinovich v. WooleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Alcaraz v. VeceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Kopfinger v. Grand Central Public MarketCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Major v. FraserNevada Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Selger v. Steven Brothers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  5. Chambers v. City and County of HonoluluHawaii Supreme Court · 1965

14 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