Legal Opinion

Kirk v. Culley

California Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1927No. Docket No. L.A. 10025PublishedCited by 82 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

This is a suit by plaintiff below, respondent’s testate, an attorney at law, against the defendant below for a balance of $1,000 claimed as an attorney’s fee. The complaint is in two counts, the first in special assumpsit on the contract of employment, alleging full performance thereunder, with the unpaid balance above stated due. The second count is in quantum meruit on the same transaction and for the same amount. The answer is a general denial with specific allegations admitting employment and certain services, but claiming full payment thereof by the sum of $350 admittedly received by the…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Head v. HargraveSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Spencer v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Daley v. RussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Duffill v. Los Angeles Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by82 opinions

  1. Durell v. Sharp HealthcareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. KinslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Denio v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Kastel v. StieberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

77 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