Legal Opinion

Meincke v. Oakland Garage, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1938No. S. F. 15918PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

After the decision of this case by the District Court of Appeal a petition for hearing was granted by this court for the purpose of giving further consideration to the legal position of a person who is injured while violating'a city ordinance prohibiting “jay walking”, we now adopt the opinion written by Mr. Justice pro tempore Dooling as the opinion of this court:

“This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff entered pursuant to the verdict of a jury. Shortly after 1 o’clock in the morning plaintiff was walking across East Twelfth Street in the city of Oakland near the middle of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Girdner v. Union Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Center v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Sawyer v. Southern California Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Rauch v. Southern California Gas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Hopkins v. Galland Mercantile Laundry Co.California Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Ketchum v. PatteeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  2. Quinn v. RosenfeldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Genola v. BarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Leap v. ROYCEOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Wooldridge v. MountsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

10 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