Legal Opinion
DeGarmo v. Luther T. Mayo, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 16, 1935No. Civ. 9276PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCOTT, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff recovered judgment for attorney’s fees for services to defendants, from which the latter appeal.
A counterclaim was interposed by defendants setting out that through negligence of plaintiff they had been damaged in the sum of $5,000. Defendants had sued an investment corporation, and assert that the judgment recovered by them was less by that amount than the sum to which they were entitled. The trial court held that the cause of action on the counterclaim was barred by the limitation imposed by section 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and excluded it from…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- WILCOX v. the Executors of PlummerSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- People v. ReidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Hays v. EwingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Walter v. AyvazianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- People v. WeatherfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Walker v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Moonie v. LynchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- State v. MarchandSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1978
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.