Legal Opinion

Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1961No. S. F. 20188PublishedCited by 129 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

— This is an appeal by cross-defendant Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Company (hereafter called Hobbs) from an order granting a new trial to cross-complainant Aced, who was doing business under the fictitious name of Functional Construction Company.

*577Aced contracted with plaintiff owners to build a home with a radiant heating system installed in a concrete slab floor. Hobbs, as subcontractor, agreed with Aced to furnish the necessary labor and material for the system, and the installation was completed by the end of January 1953. Numerous leaks developed in the tubing, and in 1955 the entire system had…

2Cases cited67 opinions

  1. Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Gagne v. BertranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. People v. KitchensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Phelan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

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

3Cited by129 opinions

  1. Mercer v. PerezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Green v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Lantzy v. Centex HomesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009

124 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