Legal Opinion
Linder v. Vogue Investments, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 13, 1966No. Civ. 28100, 28237PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKaus, J.
Frustrated in several attempts to intervene in an action between E. Joseph Linder, as plaintiff, and Crescent Homes, as defendant, Vogue Investments Inc., the purported intervener, has filed two appeals, which were consolidated by order of this court.
On June 11, 1963, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint against Crescent Homes, designated as a limited partnership, for money loaned in the sum of $29,940. The complaint alleged that one Jack Katz was the general partner and Vogue Investments, Inc. (Vogue), the limited partner. Summons was served on Katz ivho did nothing to cause Crescent…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Dillard v. McKnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Bowles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Bice v. StevensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Johnson v. Hayes Cal Builders, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Blue Mountain Development Co. v. CarvilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Ferraro v. CamarlinghiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Pritchett v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1985
- Veterans' Industries, Inc. v. LynchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Smith Ex Rel. Carson CATV Associates v. BaderDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.