Legal Opinion

Brizzolari v. Market Street Railway Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 29, 1935No. Civ. 9429PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment for personal injuries following the verdict of a jury.

At the close of plaintiffs’ case defendant moved for a non-suit which was denied. The order denying this motion is assigned as error. This assignment and the second made in appellant’s brief, that there is no evidence tending to show that defendant was guilty of any negligence which proximately contributed to the accident in question, may appropriately be considered together. In so considering them wé will follow the established practice of stating the evidence most…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Interstate Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Shannon v. Central-Gaither Union School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. Steele v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Katz v. HelbingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Graff v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Crane v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Mudrick v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Kataoka v. May Department Stores Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Satariano v. SleightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Rather v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

6 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