Wexler v. Goldstein
California Court of Appeal
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
- Keenan v. DeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Leavitt v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Petersen v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Dynes v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
3Cited by17 opinions
- Walker v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Ballenger v. TillmanMontana Supreme Court · 1958
- Muller v. ReaghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- People v. ColeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Campbell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.