Miller v. Motor Coach Company

California Court of Appeal

Miller v. Motor Coach Company

16 P.2d 781, 127 Cal. App. 781, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 513

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 29, 1932

DocketDocket No. 7248.

StatusPublished

This text of 16 P.2d 781 (Miller v. Motor Coach Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Motor Coach Company, 16 P.2d 781, 127 Cal. App. 781, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

As the result of three actions which arose from allegedly negligent operation of a motor-bus and a private automobile at an intersection of public thoroughfares, consolidated for the purposes of trial, judgments were rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants presented separate appeals therefrom upon the same transcript. The instant appeal is from one of said judgments, entered in favor of a passenger of said automobile.

[1] The questions involved herein are identical with those decided in the case of Harlow v. Motor Coach Co., (Civil No. 7246) ante, p. 728 [16 P.2d 779]. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment is affirmed.

Works, P.J., and Stephens, J., pro tem., concurred.

*Page 782

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

As the result of three actions which arose from allegedly negligent operation of a motor-bus and a private automobile at an intersection of public thoroughfares, consolidated for the purposes of trial, judgments were rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants presented separate appeals therefrom upon the same transcript. The instant appeal is from one of said judgments, entered in favor of a passenger of said automobile.

[1] The questions involved herein are identical with those decided in the case of Harlow v. Motor Coach Co., (Civil No. 7246) ante, p. 728 [16 P.2d 779]. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment is affirmed.

Works, P.J., and Stephens, J., pro tem., concurred.

*Page 782

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 P.2d 781, 127 Cal. App. 781, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-motor-coach-company-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack