Nichols v. Hast
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, C. J.
After jury verdicts and a judgment for defendant in an action for personal injuries and wrongful death, plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdicts. Defendant appeals from the order granting that motion.
Defendant does not dispute that the trial court could properly conclude that the evidence was insufficient to justify verdicts in his favor. „ He contends only that the court was without jurisdiction to grant plaintiffs ’ motion for a new trial because their notice of intention to make the motion did not meet the requirements of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sampsell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Malkasian v. IrwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Webber v. WebberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Lamoreux v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1957
- Secreto v. CarlanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bardessono v. MichelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Vacco Industries, Inc. v. Van Den BergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hosp.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Life v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Sinclair v. Aquarius Electronics, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.