Martin v. Miqueu

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Defendants’ theory was that such back injury was slight. It was therefore proper for plaintiff to introduce ... evidence concerning the manner of the happening of the accident in order to show the force with which defendant ... struck the automobile of plaintiff’
• “Defendants’ theory was that such back injury was slight. It was therefore proper for plaintiff to introduce ... evidence concerning the manner of the happening of the accident in order to show the force with which defendant ... struck the automobile of plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Hall
  California Supreme Court· 1980-09-08· cited 156×
• Christ v. Schwartz
  California Court of Appeal· 2016-08-12· cited 126×
• Fuentes v. Tucker
  California Supreme Court· 1947-12-02· cited 104×
• Armenta v. Churchill
  California Supreme Court· 1954-03-05· cited 78×
• Mason v. Lynch
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2005-07-15· cited 15×
• Gambrell v. Zengel
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1970-05-26· cited 12×
• Gourdin v. Waller
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 1972-04-04· cited 4×
• Brenman v. Demello
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2006-03-08· cited 3×
• RISH VS. SIMAO C/W 59208/59423
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2016-03-17