Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Division, Inc.

68 Cal.App. 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Division, Inc.

24 Citing cases

  1. Nebelung v. Norman

    14 Cal.2d 647 (Cal. 1939)   Cited 12 times
    In Nebelung v. Norman, 14 Cal.2d 647, at page 655, 96 P.2d 327, at page 331, in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the court said: "When a new trial is asked upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, 'the moving party must make a strong case' (Smith v. Schwartz, 14 Cal.App.2d 160, 166, 57 P.2d 1386), and this is particularly true when the alleged newly discovered evidence relates to facts occurring after the conclusion of the tria."

    [9] When a new trial is asked upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, `the moving party must make a strong case' ( Smith v. Schwartz, 14 Cal.App.2d 160, 166 [ 57 P.2d 1386]), and this is particularly true when the alleged newly discovered evidence relates to facts occurring after the conclusion of the trial. The only California case, involving comparable facts, which has been called to our attention is Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, N.D., 68 Cal.App. 494 [ 229 P. 885]. It was there held that the motion for new trial had been properly denied.

  2. Anderson v. I.M. Jameson Corp.

    7 Cal.2d 60 (Cal. 1936)   Cited 58 times
    In Anderson v. I.M. Jameson Corp., 7 Cal.2d 60, 59 P.2d 962 (1936), the court gave precisely this narrow interpretation to a similarly worded California statute.

    " ( Crooks v. White, 107 Cal.App. 304, 310, 311 [ 290 P. 497]; Thomas v. Visalia etc. Co., 169 Cal. 658 [ 147 P. 972]. See, also, Dowd v. Atlas Taxicab Auto Service Co., 187 Cal. 523, 532 [ 202 P. 870]; O'Neill v. San Francisco, 209 Cal. 418 [ 287 P. 449]; Ireland v. Marsden, 108 Cal.App. 632 [ 291 P. 912]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal.App. 494, 498 [ 229 P. 885]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal.App. 226 [ 255 P. 279]; Hilson v. Pacific G. E. Co., 131 Cal.App. 427, 437 [ 21 P.2d 662]; Gritsch v. Pickwick Stages System, 131 Cal.App. 774, 783 [ 22 P.2d 554].)

  3. Whitmore v. Herrick

    205 Iowa 621 (Iowa 1928)   Cited 25 times

    Demurrer will not lie in such instance, and a motion for more specific statement could not be successful, if the "general allegation" is properly connected with the facts adaptable to "res ipsa loquitur." Rawson v. Kansas City Elev. R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 613 (107 S.W. 1101); Carlson v. Wells (Mo.), 276 S.W. 26; Houston v. Lynchburg Traction L. Co., 119 Va. 136 (89 S.E. 114); Birmingham R., L. P. Co. v. Garrett, 198 Ala. 445 (73 So. 818); Hines v. Beard, 130 Va. 286 (107 S.E. 717); Rostad v. Portland R.L. P. Co., 101 Or. 569 (201 P. 184); Carnahan v. Motor Transit Co., 65 Cal.App. 402 ( 224 P. 143); Malone v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 202 Mo. App. 489 (213 S.W. 864); Coblentz v. Jaloff, 115 Or. 656 ( 239 P. 825); Selby v. Osage Torpedo Co., supra; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal.App. 494 ( 229 P. 885). See, also, Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal.App. 504 ( 229 P. 889); Reel v. Consolidated Inv. Co. (Mo.), 236 S.W. 43; Porter v. St. Joseph R.L., H. P. Co. (Mo.), 277 S.W. 913; Midland Valley R. Co. v. Conner (8th Circuit), 217 Fed. 956; White v. Chicago G.W.R. Co. (8th Circuit), 246 Fed. 427.

  4. People v. Teitelbaum

    163 Cal.App.2d 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 69 times
    Reading instructions to jury is part of trial to which public trial right applies

    A sufficient answer to this claim of error is that the word "claim" is one of common meaning and that the appellant did not request any instruction defining that meaning. ( People v. Allen, 138 Cal.App. 652 at 659 [ 33 P.2d 77]; Estate of Nutt, 181 Cal. 522 at 529 [ 185 P. 393]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, N.D., 68 Cal.App. 494 at 501 [ 229 P. 885]; People v. Whitson, 25 Cal.2d 593 [ 154 P.2d 867]; People v. Klor, 32 Cal.2d 658 at 662 [ 197 P.2d 705]. [22a] Appellant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty on the first count.

  5. Davis v. Franson

    141 Cal.App.2d 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 23 times
    In Davis v. Franson (1956), 141 Cal.App.2d 263, 273 [ 296 P.2d 600], the criticized instruction read that the burden of proving any "affirmative defenses" was on the defendant.

    "The jury are presumed to possess ordinary intelligence and to understand the meaning and use of words in their common and ordinary application." (See also Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Div. Inc., 68 Cal.App. 494, 501 [ 229 P. 885].) [14c] We conclude that the error in refusing the instruction was not so prejudicial as to require a reversal.

  6. Sherman v. Hartman

    137 Cal.App.2d 589 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 16 times
    In Sherman, the appellate court held that the trial court properly refused to give an instruction on res ipsa loquitur as to the defendant doctor who performed a hysterectomy on the plaintiff.

    (P. 757.) Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, N.D., Inc., 68 Cal.App. 494 [ 229 P. 885], where the complaint alleged that the defendant "`so carelessly and negligently operated said bus thereby causing said bus to leave the highway and turn into a ditch with great force and violence.'" (P. 497.)

  7. Finley v. City & County of S. F.

    115 Cal.App.2d 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 19 times

    [5] The instruction to the jury that the defendant could not be held liable even if the "accident could have been avoided by the exercise of exceptional foresight, skill or caution," considered in connection with the limited definition of negligence which was given, was an erroneous statement of the law, and one which in effect removed plaintiff from the category of a fare paying passenger. The defendant city and county cites the following cases as authority for the instruction given in the instant case: Polk v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal.2d 519 [ 159 P.2d 931]; Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116 [ 230 P.2d 823]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Div., Inc., 68 Cal.App. 494 [ 229 P. 885]; Smith v. Harger, 84 Cal.App.2d 361 [ 191 P.2d 25]; Merry v. Knudsen Creamery Co., 94 Cal.App.2d 715 [ 211 P.2d 905]; and Middleton v. California St. Cable Ry. Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 641 [ 167 P.2d 239]. Only two of these cases, to wit: Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Div., Inc., and Middleton v. California St. Cable Ry. Co. are cases involving common carriers.

  8. Berkowitz v. the Kiener Co.

    37 Cal.App.2d 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)   Cited 14 times

    [8] And, lastly, and perhaps most important in order to warrant the granting of a new trial on this ground, it must appear that the evidence thus offered is evidence that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been obtainable at the trial. ( People v. Byrne, 160 Cal. 217 [ 116 P. 521]; Fresno Estate Co. v. Fiske, 172 Cal. 583 [ 157 P. 1127]; Arnold v. Skaggs, 35 Cal. 684, 688; Taber v. Beske, 182 Cal. 214 [ 187 P. 746]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal.App. 494 [ 229 P. 885]; Monnette v. Title Ins. etc. Co., 107 Cal.App. 313, 324 [ 290 P. 668].) The judgment is affirmed.

  9. Moeller v. Market Sreet Railway Co.

    27 Cal.App.2d 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)   Cited 13 times
    In Moeller v. Market St. Ry. Co. (1938), 27 Cal.App.2d 562, 567 [ 81 P.2d 475], a streetcar started while plaintiff, a passenger, was alighting.

    But this error, under the evidence, was not prejudicial and therefore does not warrant a reversal. ( Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Division, Inc., 68 Cal.App. 494 [ 229 P. 885]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of S.F., 71 Cal.App. 82 [ 234 P. 863]; Harvey v. San Diego Elec. Ry. Co., 92 Cal.App. 487 [ 268 P. 468]; Even v. Pickwick Stages System, 109 Cal.App. 636 [ 293 P. 700]; Hilson v. Pacific G. E. Co., 131 Cal.App. 427 [ 21 P.2d 662].) [6] Defendants further complain that the instruction erroneously threw upon them the burden of proving their freedom from negligence if plaintiff's evidence tended to prove that her injury was caused by the act of the carrier, while in exclusive control of the car's movement.

  10. Holt v. Yellow Cab Co.

    124 Cal.App. 385 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)   Cited 12 times
    In Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., (1932) 124 Cal.App. 385 [ 12 P.2d 472], plaintiff, a passenger in a cab, was injured in a collision between the cab and another vehicle.

    Not only was this repeated many times, but the jury was also instructed that if the evidence as to negligence on the part of the defendants was evenly balanced, the plaintiff could not recover. The point here raised by appellants has been frequently considered, and we think it must be taken as established that the use of such language is not reversible error, where the rest of the instructions are proper ( Osgood v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 137 Cal. 280 [92 Am. St. Rep. 171, 70 P. 169]; Bonneau v. North Shore Ry. Co., 152 Cal. 406 [125 Am. St. Rep. 68, 93 P. 106]; Cody v. Market Street Ry. Co., 148 Cal. 90 [ 82 P. 666]; Faras v. Lower California Dev. Co., 27 Cal.App. 688 [ 151 P. 35]; Gonzales v. Nichols, 110 Cal.App. 738 [ 294 P. 758]; Bezera v. Associated Oil Co., 117 Cal.App. 139 [ 3 P.2d 622]; Kilgore v. Brown, supra; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal.App. 494 [ 229 P. 885]; Atkinson v. United Railroads, 71 Cal.App. 82 [ 234 P. 863]). [4] It is next urged that the court erred in giving the following instruction: