Legal Opinion

Geisler v. Rugh

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 25, 1937No. Civ. 10195PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

An action for damages based on the alleged negligence of defendants.

Plaintiff’s husband, Joseph Ceisler, was struck and killed by an automobile owned by defendant Kramm and which, with his permission, was being operated by defendant Rugh. Plaintiff recovered judgment against both defendants, who have appealed therefrom. They claim that the evidence was insufficient to show negligence on their part and that it established contributory negligence on the part of decedent; and further, that certain rulings of the trial court were prejudicially erroneous and that the award was excessive.

D…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mar Shee v. Maryland Assurance Corp.California Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Hatzakorzian v. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Raymond v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Donat v. DillonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Chase v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Kuist v. CurranCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Broun v. BlairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. Lebkicher v. CrosbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co.California Supreme Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API