Legal Opinion

Starr v. Kreuzberger

California Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1900No. Sac. No. 641PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Action by an employee against his employers to recover damages for personal injury claimed to have been sustained through their negligence. The defendants claimed that the injury was the result of plaintiff’s carelessness. The cause was tried hy the court and plaintiff had judgment. Defendants moved for a new trial, and the appeal is from the order denying the motion. Some objections are made to the findings as contradictory and argumentative, but the principal question argued is that the findings are not supported by the evidence.

The injury resulted from the falling of a brick…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Silveira v. IversenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Magee v. North Pacific Coast RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Devens v. GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Slovick v. James I. Barnes Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Majors v. ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Umsted ex rel. Umsted v. Colgate Farmers Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Emery v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941

4 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