Legal Opinion

Linville Brothers v. Bliesner

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1925No. 18900. Department OnePublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

The purpose of this action was to recover damages to an automobile claimed to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant August Bliesner, who will hereinafter be referred to as though the only party defendant. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment denying recovery for the reason that the driver of the plaintiff’s car, at the time of the accident, was guilty of contributory negligence. From the judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff appeals.

The facts are not in serious dispute, except upon two or three…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pannell v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Chapin v. StickelWashington Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Haines v. PinneyWashington Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Flaumer v. SamuelsWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Metcalf v. Mud Bay Logging Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Walters v. KnoxWashington Supreme Court · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API