Legal Opinion

Hartford v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 1, 1936No. Civ. 10756PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

This appeal is on the judgment roll. The sole specification of error is that certain findings of the court are so conflicting, contradictory and irreconcilable that the judgment based thereon must be reversed. The action was brought by the heirs at law of George W. Hartford, deceased, for damages because of his death caused by the negligence of the defendants and respondents. The trial court found: “ . . . that the injuries from which said George W. Hartford died were all caused by the direct and proximate result of the negligent, reckless and careless acts of Pacific Motor…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Breeze v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Johnson v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bauman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  2. Dennis v. GonzalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Menghetti v. DillonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. McKeon v. GiustoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Scribner v. BertmannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

5 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