Legal Opinion

Joseph v. Drew

California Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1950No. L. A. 21481PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

This case presents for consideration the propriety of the trial court’s denial to plaintiffs of recovery for the reasonable value of architectural services rendered to defendants. The determinative issue in adjudication of the validity of plaintiffs’ claim is the purport of the state licensing requirements for the practice of architecture. Plaintiffs maintain that the law does not preclude the enforcement of their right to compensation,- and the record, in the light of the pertinent statutory provisions, sustains plaintiffs’ position.

Plaintiffs are architects licensed to practice in…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Loving & Evans v. BlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Hynes v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Gomez v. CecenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Payne v. De VaughnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  5. In Re the Estate of WarnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. McQuarrie v. KuttlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. Krause v. ApodacaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Bookout v. State of California Ex Rel. Department of TransportationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Casetta v. United States Rubber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968

20 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