Legal Opinion

Universal Pictures Corp. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 15, 1935No. Civ. 10386PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, P. J.

The essential facts herein are that one Hymer entered into an agreement with Universal Pictures Corporation, by the terms of which the former was employed as an actor or “artist” by the latter in its production of a “photoplay”; and in which employment Hymer was to receive a salary of $1,000 per week. Among the terms of the agreement was the following provision with respect to the settlement of any disagreement that might arise between the parties, to wit:

“Should any dispute or controversy arise between the parties hereto with reference to this contract or the employment herein provided for,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. School Dist. No. 94, Grant Co. v. GautierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
  3. Gay v. Hudson River Electric Power Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1910
  4. Wirth v. CalhounNebraska Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Latta v. LonsdaleCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. County of Los Angeles v. FrisbieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. People v. HamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  3. Robinson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. American Medical Ass'n v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
  5. People v. PallaresAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1952

13 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