Legal Opinion
Prout v. Perkins
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 12, 1937No. Civ. 11204PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDoran, J.
—This is an appeal by plaintiffs from an order granting a motion for a new trial on the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision and that the decision was against law.
It is contended by appellants that there is “no conflict of any kind as to the facts imposing liability” and that “the correct law as applied to the uncontradicted facts, compels a decision for plaintiffs”. Inferentially, therefore, it is contended that the court abused its discretion in granting a motion for a new trial.
As has been hitherto declared: “The courts of last resort of this state have…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Peri v. CulleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Fisher v. PenningtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Hanlon Drydock & Shipbuilding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Mosekian v. GinsbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Lambert v. KampCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hames v. RustCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- King v. Union Pac. R. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1949
- Hammontree v. KenworthyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1965
- Roma W. Co. v. Hardware Mutual Fire Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939
- Helle v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.