Legal Opinion
Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 16, 1953No. Civ. 19045PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PATROSSO, J. pro tem.
This is an appeal by Murray Metzenbaum as liquidating partner of two dissolved partnerships (with only one of which we are concerned here) from an order denying him reimbursement for attorneys’ fees alleged to have been incurred by him in behalf of said dissolved firm.
All of the parties involved are members of the same family. The respondent, Walter Metzenbaum and Rose Metzenbaum are the parents of the appellant Murray Metzenbaum and Panchon Metzenbaum, and they will sometimes hereinafter be referred to by their given names.
In May, 1943, respondent and appellant entered…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Gilmore v. . HamNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Duffill v. Los Angeles Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- King v. . LeightonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Dingwell v. SeymourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Stephens v. OrmanSupreme Court of Florida · 1862
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Pearson v. NortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Sammons v. DavisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Dern v. DernMontana Supreme Court · 1996
- Whittlesey v. AielloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.