Legal Opinion
Steele v. Litton Industries, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 18, 1968No. Civ. 30391PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFrampton, J.
pro tem. * —The defendants Litton Industries, Inc., Charles B. Thornton, Roy L. Ash, Hugh W. Jamie-son and Electro Dynamics Stock Trust Fund, a partnership, have appealed from the judgment and, by means of a second notice of appeal, from the order denying their respective motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
It was alleged in each of the first six counts of the complaint of the plaintiff Steele that the defendants Thornton, Ash and Jamieson were copartners, doing business under the name of Electro Dynamics Stock Trust Fund and that Thornton was the agent of each of the other…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Steelduct Co. v. Henger-Seltzer Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Reynolds v. WillsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Neff v. ErnstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Stevens v. MarcoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Joan Cherie Amadeo v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Dietrich v. Litton Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1970
- Joan Cherie Amadeo v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Port Authority of Guam v. Guam Industrial Services, Inc. dba Guam ShipyardSupreme Court of Guam · 2026
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.