Legal Opinion

Behm v. Clear View Technologies

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 8, 2015No. H040032PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WALSH, J. *

—Pamela Behm asserts that she was persuaded by the false representations of officers and directors of Clear View Technologies (CVT) to invest approximately $200,000 in the company. CVT claimed to be developing “BarMaster,” a product that would measure pours of alcohol with such precision that it would save large sums of money for purveyors of adult beverages and reap great profits for CVT. When CVT had financial difficulties and Behm discovered the product did not have the viability she had been assured, she filed a lawsuit against CVT and its officers and directors seeking…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  2. Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Elston v. City of TurlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Greenup v. RodmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Becker v. S.P v. Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. G & W Warren's, Inc. v. DabneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  2. Brome v. Cal. Highway PatrolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  3. Champion v. Amazon.com LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
  4. Siry Investment v. FarkhondehpourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  5. Siry Investment v. FarkhondehpourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020

1 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