Legal Opinion
Romero v. Eustace
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 20, 1950No. Civ. 17743PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilson, J.
given to the positive testimony of a witness is solely a question for the trial court is not applicable in a case in which the testimony, in the light of the undisputed facts, is so inherently improbable and impossible of belief as in effect to constitute no evidence at all. (Bennett v. Chandler, 52 Cal.App.2d 255, 261 [126 P.2d 173]; DeArellanes v. Arellanes, 151 Cal. 443, 448 [90 P. 1059].) Plaintiffs invoke this rule as one of the grounds of their appeal from the judgment in favor of defendant in their action against her for malpractice. The other ground is the insufficiency of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Buckhantz v. R. G. Hamilton & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
- De Arellanes v. ArellanesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Peterson v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Bennett v. ChandlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Poe v. LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Continental Dairy Equipment Co. v. LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- People v. MaxwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Evje v. City Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Pierson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Rybolt v. Riley, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.