Legal Opinion

Tearney v. Riddle

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 8, 1944No. Civ. 3319PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

This is an appeal from an order setting aside and vacating a prior order, the default of respondent, and a judgment against her, and ordering her answer to the third amended complaint to be filed.

This was an action for damages alleged to have been caused by the willful misconduct of Clarence F. Riddle, a minor, in the operation of his automobile. Frank N. Riddle and Mrs. Frank N. Riddle were father and mother of the minor and had signed his application for the operator’s license which was issued to him. Their alleged liability arises because of that fact. (Veh. Code, §§ 350, 351, 352.)

A third…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brill v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Stub v. HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Salazar v. SteelmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Glendale v. LongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. Conway v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. Conway v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  4. Jones v. LindseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Hendrix v. HendrixCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

2 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