Legal Opinion
Carey v. Cusack
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 21, 1966No. Civ. 22687PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
Plaintiffs, G. E. Carey and C. J. Keenan, real estate brokers (hereafter brokers) recovered in quantum meruit for services rendered in subdividing certain property owned by defendants, William B. and Eileen M. Cusack (hereafter Cusacks). On this appeal, the Cusacks contend that the trial court erred by: 1) denying their motion to dismiss the complaint as the action was barred by the compulsory counterclaim statute (Code Civ. Proe., § 439) as well as the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata; and 2) allowing the brokers to recover in quantum meruit as the relief was barred by the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Sutphin v. SpeikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Clark v. LesherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Beazell v. SchraderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Nolte v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Saunders v. New Capital for Small Businesses, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1964
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re De Laurentiis Entertainment Group Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Debtor. Carolco Television Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1987
- C. Forsman Real Estate Company v. HatchIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
- Rader Co. v. StoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Align Technology, Inc. v. TranCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.