Legal Opinion
Miracle Adhesives Corp. v. Peninsula Tile Contractors' Ass'n
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 17, 1958No. Civ. 17584PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDraper, J.
Defendant is an association of tile contractors. On behalf of its member contractors, it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union, Local Number 19. One provision of the agreement reads:
“At no time shall tile be installed in mastic or thin setting beds other than conventional methods unless all requirements and specifications contained in Handbook K-400 pertaining to types of such installations have been complied with. The adhesive shall be used according to the manufacturers’ specifications and shall bear commercial standard…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Bank of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Mitau v. RoddanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- McClure v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Kraus v. Willow Park Public Golf CourseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Holt v. College of Osteopathic Physicians & SurgeonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Orange County Water District v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Copley v. CopleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Messner v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers & Cosmetologists, International Union of America, Local 256California Supreme Court · 1960
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.