Chamberlin v. Smith
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHAPMAN (R. D.), J . *
We are asked, in this appeal, to decide which of three insurance companies must bear a loss occasioned by a claim of negligence on the part of an attorney.
We need not decide whether the attorney was in fact negligent, because the insurance companies have settled the claim.
Richard and Barbara Chamberlin (hereinafter Chamberlins) and Harold E. Paul and Harold E. Paul, Jr. (hereinafter Pauls) were the principal stockholders of Larraburu Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter the corporation). The Pauls desired to acquire control of the Chamberlins’ stock. The parties agreed on…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1956
- Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Gribaldo, Jacobs, Jones & Associates v. Agrippina Versicherunges A. G.California Supreme Court · 1970
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Carvell v. BottomsTennessee Supreme Court · 1995
- Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers' Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. WA. PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICTS'UTILITY SYSTEMWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Yancey v. Floyd West & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1988
- Southland Mechanical Constructors Corp. v. NixenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.