Legal Opinion

R. P. Hill and Mary Hill v. A. E. Waxberg, Doing Business as Waxberg Construction Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 26, 1956No. 14982PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HALBERT, District Judge.

The appellee, Waxberg, brought this action in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska to recover the reasonable value of his services and the expenditures made by him in connection with a proposed building contract which was never consummated. The action was originally instituted against R. P. Hill and Mary Hill, his wife, but it was, by stipulation, dismissed as to Mrs. Hill, so we are not concerned with her on this appeal. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wax-berg for the sum of $11,167.46. Appellant attacks the judgment entered on this verdict as…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Western Asphalt Co. v. ValleWashington Supreme Court · 1946

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
  2. Franks v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  3. Havenfield Corporation v. H & R Block, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
  4. Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Brady v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1998

21 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