Legal Opinion

Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1961No. S. F. 20188PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

55 Cal.2d 573 (1961)

JAMES P. ACED, Respondent,

v.

HOBBS-SESACK PLUMBING COMPANY (a Partnership), Appellant. [fn. *]

S. F. No. 20188.

Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

Apr. 6, 1961.

Crist, Peters, Donegan & Brenner and John M. Brenner for Appellant.

Ropers, Majeski & Kane and Eugene J. Majeski for Respondent.

GIBSON, C. J.

This is an appeal by cross-defendant Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Company (hereafter called Hobbs) from an order granting a new trial to cross-complainant Aced, who was doing business under the fictitious name of Functional Construction Company.

Aced contracted with plaintiff owners to…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited67 opinions

  1. Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Gagne v. BertranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. People v. KitchensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Phelan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jason Whiting v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2019
  2. Nadia Sheibani v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API