Legal Opinion
Rigney v. De La Salle Institute
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 5, 1935No. Civ. 5223; Civ. 5224; Civ. 5225PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAXEY, J., pro tem.
The plaintiffs are materialmen or subcontractors who furnished labor and material to defendant for the construction and erection of certain buildings at Mount Veeder, in Napa County, California. Each of the plaintiffs filed separate actions for an alleged balance due for labor and materials furnished. By stipulation, the several actions were consolidated, and were tried as one action. This appeal has been taken by the defendant from the verdict of the jury in favor of three of the materialmen or subcontractors.
The defendant is a corporation, organized and existing under the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Geary Street, Park & Ocean Railroad v. RolphCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Ferguson v. McBeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. v. SeeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Roosevelt Apartments, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1933
- Marshall v. BernheimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Associated Creditors' Agency v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Gardiner v. GaitherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Nels E. Nelson, Inc. v. TarmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Luce v. SuttonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Clifton Cattle Co. v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.