Legal Opinion
Akers v. City of Palo Alto
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 24, 1961No. Civ. 19515PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, P. J.
Plaintiffs appeal from judgment, after jury trial, in favor of all defendants.
Questions Presented
1. Instruction given.
2. Instructions refused.
3. Effect of Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist., 55 Cal.2d 211 [11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457].
Record
Plaintiffs were injured when the automobile in which they were riding was struck by a Southern Pacific train at a railroad crossing in Palo Alto, at which crossing employees of the city of Palo Alto were painting stop lines. Plaintiffs sued the Southern Pacific Company, James Goodwin, an employee of the city of Palo Alto and, under the Public Liability…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Bauman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Davenport v. StrattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Gigliotti v. NunesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Koster v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Twente v. Ellis Fischel State Cancer HospitalMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
- Hom v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Chavez v. County of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Wadley v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Thon v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.