# Knighten v. Sam's Parking Valet

> California Court of Appeal · November 23, 1988 · 206 Cal. App. 3d 69

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720297

## Case

- **Full name:** LINDEN MAURICE KNIGHTEN Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAM’S PARKING VALET Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** November 23, 1988
- **Citations:** 206 Cal. App. 3d 69; 253 Cal. Rptr. 365; 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1098
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sonenshine
- **Judges:** Scoville
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720297

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding valet parking service had no duty to withhold automobiles from an intoxicated patron

## Opinion text

*80 SONENSHINE, J., Concurring.
I do not adopt all of the reasoning of the majority. However, I concur in the results and in the sentiments expressed in the conclusion.
Appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 16, 1989.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720297. Public record. Not legal advice.