Mirabito v. Liccardo
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERSON, J.—
Kathleen Liccardo, in her capacity as executrix of the will of Leonard J. Liccardo, appeals from a civil judgment entered after a jury verdict awarding damages to respondent Edmond Mirabito. Appellant presents several arguments on appeal, but maintains primarily that the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to consider the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar when reaching its decision. We disagree and affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Edmond Mirabito (hereafter Edmond) operated a shoe shop in San Francisco for over 41 years. An astute investor,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lazy Seven Coal Sales, Inc. v. Stone & Hinds, P.C.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1991
- Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1973
- Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & RussellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Day v. RosenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- David Welch Co. v. Erskine & TulleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- In Re Ronald Kirsh in Re Paula Kirsh, Debtors. Eugene Parks Law Corporation Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Ronald Kirsh Paula KirshCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. HazardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & HamptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Fair v. BakhtiariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.