Legal Opinion

Alder v. Drudis

California Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1947No. L. A. 19357PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarter, J.

In this action in claim and delivery and for declaratory relief, with a cross-complaint raising issues of fraud and misrepresentation, defendants and cross-complainants Drudis and Roberts appeal from an adverse judgment.

In 1941, plaintiff William F. Alder, an inventor, was the holder of United States letters patent on a device for producing third dimensional motion pictures, known as a polyscope. Plaintiff McMahon, in return for an interest in the patent, was engaged in efforts to develop and commercialize the device. Plans were under consideration for the organization of a development…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Continental Car-Na-Var Corp. v. MoseleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Gold Mining & Water Co. v. SwinertonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. McConnell v. Corona City Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  4. California Press Manufacturing Co. v. Stafford Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Sobelman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Rafael Chodos, an Individual v. West Publishing Company, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Doing Business in California Dba Bancroft-Whitney CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  2. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Zhang v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  4. GHK Associates v. Mayer Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  5. Paularena v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965

38 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