Legal Opinion

Bayless v. Mull

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 24, 1942No. Civ. 12890PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HANSON, J. pro tem.

This is an action brought by appellant against the Central Chevrolet Company and its employee Mull to recover for injuries she sustained as the result of being run down in a pedestrian lane by a motor vehicle driven by Mull and owned by the Chevrolet Company. The trial court granted a nonsuit in favor of the company but submitted the case of the plaintiff against Mull to the jury, which returned a verdict of $2,000 in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff’s appeal is not only from the action of the trial court in granting a nonsuit but also from the judgment entered upon the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Reitz v. MealeySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sales Corp.California Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Henrietta v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Gousse v. LoweCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Guzenfield v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Souza v. CortiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Burgess v. CahillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Steele v. NagelIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Tyson v. RomeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Long v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1948

19 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