Legal Opinion
Holt v. Booth
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 19, 1991No. E007798PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TIMLIN, J.
The primary issue raised on appeal by the appellant (Holt) in this case is whether he was acting within the course and scope of his employment by respondent (Booth) when he (Holt) negligently injured a third party. We will conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment entered below to the effect that Holt was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of his accident. Before reaching that issue of substantive law, however, it is necessary to address issues of appealability and standing which are raised by the procedural posture…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mary M. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Tsarnas v. BaileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Grissom v. Vons Companies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Douglas v. Los Angeles Herald-ExaminerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. ConsaniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & GladstoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs., Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Swain v. California Casualty Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Lopez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Westamerica Bank v. Mbg Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.