Legal Opinion
Constans v. Ross
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 30, 1951No. Civ. 18263PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, P. J.
Plaintiffs recovered judgment upon the verdict of a jury in an action for the value of building materials furnished to defendant William A. Davidson, a building contractor. The verdict and judgment against defendants and appellants Paul S. Burkholder and Ivan K. Ross were based upon the theory that said appellants were partners with Davidson in the business of building homes. A reversal is sought upon the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict, by which the jury impliedly found that appellants were partners with Davidson and therefore liable for the debts…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Campagna v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Westcott v. GilmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Denning v. TaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Tuttle v. BlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- San Joaquin Light & Power Corp. v. CostaloupesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- People v. ParkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Holmes v. LernerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Gardiner v. GaitherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Louis Lesser Enterprises, Ltd. v. RoederCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.