Legal Opinion
Lilienthal v. Hastings Clothing Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 5, 1954No. Civ. 15625PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.
Defendants appeal from an order under section 953e, Code of Civil Procedure, granting plaintiff a new trial and vacating the judgment.
Question Presented
Under the circumstances here, did the court abuse its discretion?
Record
The action is one for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by plaintiff in slipping on the floor of defendant Hastings’ store. After a protracted trial (the transcript contains 1152 pages), the jury verdict was in favor of all defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied. August 3, 1951, plaintiff filed notice of appeal from the judgment. August…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Palmer v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Diamond v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Conlin v. CoyneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Caminetti v. Edward Brown & SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Fickett v. RauchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Stokes v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1968
- Charles E. Hart v. Frank Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison, State of ArizonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency v. IzantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Weinstein v. E. F. Hutton & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Charles E. Hart v. Frank Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison, State of ArizonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.