Legal Opinion

Johnson v. McMahan

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 1, 1998No. B115029PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EPSTEIN, Acting P. J .

The sole issue in this case is whether the California dog bite statute, Civil Code section 3342, applies when the bitee does not suffer a wound. It does. The trial court ruled otherwise, granting defendants’ motion for summary adjudication. Plaintiff was unsuccessful in his other causes of action, and suffered an adverse judgment from which he appeals. Beyond this statement, we eschew word play opportunities offered by the factual context of the case. (See Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. etc. Regulation (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 372, 374 [228 Cal.Rptr. 101];…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal RegulationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  2. Goldberg v. RabuchinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Edwards v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Hensley v. McBrideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  5. Ellsworth v. Elite Dry Cleaners, Dyers & Laundry, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1954

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. DeVivo v. AndersonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API