Legal Opinion
Bird v. Utica Gold Mining Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 18, 1906No. Civ. No. 101PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for damages received while working in a mine operated by defendants, taken within sixty days from verdict and entry of judgment, and comes before us upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.
The first point raised by appellant is that: “The amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against either defendant, inasmuch as the alleged defects causing the accident were patent, not latent.” It is alleged in the amended complaint that defendants did not furnish, or exercise reasonable care to…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. JarviCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
- Howland v. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Callan v. BullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Perry v. . RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Finalyson v. Utica Mining & Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Crabbe v. Mammoth Channel Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
- Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. BerrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Thomas v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. O'DonnellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Bird v. Utica Gold Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1906