Legal Opinion

Rose v. Porter

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 21, 1950No. Civ. 17640; Civ. 17641PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

The two actions for damages arising out of personal injuries suffered in the same accident were consolidated. for trial. Findings were made in each ease and separate judgments were entered against identical defendants. The appeals were consolidated on one record. In view of appellant’s stipulation that the evidence is sufficient to warrant the judgment against defendant Porter this discussion will be' directed to a consideration of the demands of appellant, Metalizing Company of America, in whose name the offending car was registered. * The sole question for decision, therefore, is whether…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hicks v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sales Corp.California Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Krum v. MalloyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Henrietta v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Di Rebaylio v. HerndonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Peterson v. Grieger, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Elkinton v. California State Automobile Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Irvine v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1955
  4. Burdine v. Severin Motors, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Garmon v. SebastianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

3 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