Legal Opinion

Van Arsdale v. Hollinger

California Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1968No. L. A. 29475PublishedCited by 188 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.

In this action to recover for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants Hollinger and the City of Los Angeles.

Plaintiff’s employer, Savala Paving Company, entered into a contract with the City of Los Angeles relating to improvements on Century Boulevard, which has three eastbound lanes. On the morning of the accident, barricades were placed across the two outer lanes, leaving the center lane open for traffic, and smaller barricades were placed along the lane lines. Plaintiff and his foreman first eradicated the line between the center and the northerly lane.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  2. United States Ex Rel. Almeida v. BaldiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1952
  3. United States v. National City Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. Austin v. Riverside Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Woolen v. Aerojet General CorporationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962

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

3Cited by188 opinions

  1. Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Privette v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Wilcox v. BirtwhistleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Walker v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Merritt v. Reserve InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973

183 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