Legal Opinion

Russell v. Roscoe

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 7, 1930No. Docket No. 221PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCary, P. J.

At the times under consideration here plaintiff was an inventor and the owner of a patent on a parachute. Defendant owned an interest in the Melrose Confectionery Company. Plaintiff, lacking both the business experience and the means to place his invention on the market, met defendant, who undertook, in consideration of receiving an interest in the patent, to find a party who could supply the experience and the means for marketing the same. The agreements between plaintiff and defendant include a total of six contracts. In due course these contracts produced two lawsuits, which were…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Palladine v. Imperial Valley Farm Lands Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. Teague v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Winkler v. JerrueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  5. Haserot v. KellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. Union FM v. Southern Cal. FMCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Giomi v. ViottiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. American Guaranty Co. v. Sunset Realty & Planting Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1944
  5. Union Flower Market, Ltd. v. Southern California Flower Market, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API