Legal Opinion

Barovic v. Constanti

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 13, 1935No. 25422. Department TwoPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlake, J.

For a number of years prior to Ms death in the summer of 1932, Dominic Constanti owned and operated a number of moving picture theaters in Tacoma, Puyallup and Sumner. The plaintiff, his son-in-law, was manager of the theaters in Puyallup and Sumner.

In the late fall of 1929, Barovic was approached by one McNérney with a proposition to build a theater at Aberdeen. McNerney at that time was sales manager for United Artists Corporation at Seattle. He had known both Constanti and Barovic for a number of years. His idea, as first presented to Barovic, was to establish theaters, not only at…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nicholson v. KilburyWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Andrews v. KelleherWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Brownfield v. HollandWashington Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Stipich v. KrilichWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Stowell v. Cashmere Apple Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Eder v. ReddickWashington Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Constanti v. BarovicWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Gilkes v. BeezerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1971
  4. Collyer v. EgbertWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  5. In Re the Estate of FinkeWashington Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API