Legal Opinion

Steinberg v. Goldstein

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 8, 1956No. Civ. 5351PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COUGHLIN, J. pro tem. *

This is an appeal from an order upon a petition by a receiver requesting instructions.

The plaintiff and defendant are licensed physicians and surgeons. In 1947, they formed a partnership to engage in the practice of medicine and surgery with principal offices in the city of Fresno, California.

On April 4, 1950, the plaintiff commenced this action for a dissolution of the partnership, an accounting, the appointment of a receiver, and damages. The plaintiff alleged that, without his consent, the defendant “opened an office for himself” in Visalia, using partnership funds…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hooper v. BarrantiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  2. Lesser & Son v. SeymourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Shunken v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Irer v. GawnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Bank of Woodland v. HeronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Prince v. HartingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Hankin v. HankinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API