U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1957

Glen Earl Grigg v. Southern Pacific Company, a Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 25, 1957 · Lemmon, Fee, Chambers

248 F.2d 949; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3900 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Barnett & Robertson, Rodney H. Robertson, San Francisco, Cal., Charles J. Miller, Sacramento, Cal., for appellant., Devlin, Diepenbrock & Wulff, Horace B. Wulff, Sacramento, Cal., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Blake v. Dunn Farms, Inc. (Ind. 1980)
Mike Silverman & Associates v. Drai (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1987)
Royer v. Pryor Ex Rel. Pryor (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On petition for rehearing the appellant contends the issue that defendant’s corral was negligently constructed was before the trial court. If so, then the matter is concluded by the trial court’s finding that “at all times mentioned in the action, said stock corral was constructed and maintained [by defendant] with reasonable care;” a finding permissible to a fact trier and not clearly erroneous.

The statutory duties of care cited by appellant are designed to assure care of the animals while in transit or until the consignee has reasonable time to reach his stock upon arrival. They do not reach the situation where stock has at the time in question no further destination and the consignee has taken charge of his animals.

And assuming the duty and breach, this court still finds no basis to make an intelligent guess as to causation.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.