Legal Opinion

Goudal v. Cecil B. DeMille Pictures Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 19, 1931No. Docket No. 6752PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRICKE, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $34,531.23 in an action to recover damages for breach of a contract of employment entered into in April, 1925. Under this agreement respondent was employed by appellant as a motion picture actress for one year beginning May 19, 1925, with the option to appellant of four yearly extensions of the contract, each yearly extension to be at a specified substantial increase in compensation. Respondent entered upon" her duties and appellant twice exercised its option, extending the period o£ employment to May 18, 1928.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. May v. New York Motion Picture Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. W. F. Boardman Co. v. PetchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Gregg v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. Rosenberger v. Pacific Coast Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1896

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. De La Falaise v. Gaumont-British Picture Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1940
  2. Holtzendorff v. Housing AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. Stoffel v. Metcalfe Construction Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Jouflas v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1996
  5. James W. Kippen v. American Automatic Typewriter CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API