Legal Opinion

Wexler v. Goldstein

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 30, 1956No. Civ. 16992PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AGEE, J. pro tem.*

This action was originally commenced in the municipal court to recover a money judgment for legal services rendered to defendant by plaintiffs, who are attorneys. Defendant cross-complained for an amount in excess of $3,000. The municipal court thereupon properly transferred the action to the superior court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 396, par. 2.) In due course, defendant filed a second amended cross-complaint, containing two counts. The first count sought a money judgment for $220.91. The second count was for punitive damages in the amount of $4,000. Plaintiffs’ general demurrer…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Keenan v. DeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. Leavitt v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Petersen v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Dynes v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Walker v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Ballenger v. TillmanMontana Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Muller v. ReaghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. People v. ColeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Campbell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

12 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