Legal Opinion

Cooley v. Freeman

California Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1928No. Docket No. S.F. 12247PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

Respondent, as a subcontractor, furnished material and performed labor which was utilized in the construction of a portion of the state highway in San Mateo County. The item here in dispute relates to what is known as an “overhaul charge”—a charge of so much per cubic yard for hauling material for “shoulders” or elevated borders along said highway when finished, such hauling being from a place without the right of way and more than three hundred feet from a certain point in the zone of use. In default of payment respondent sued the contractor and his surety for the disputed item and recovered…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Associated Oil Co. v. Commary-Peterson Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
  3. Hub Hardware Co. v. Aetna Accident & Liab. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Los Angeles S. Co. v. National S. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pneucrete Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  2. Powers Regulator Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co. of New YorkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  3. Pacific Employers Insurance v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Scott Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  5. H. G. Fenton Material Co. v. NobleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

2 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