Legal Opinion

Ricard v. Grobstein, Goldman, Stevenson, Siegel, LeVine & Mangel

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 11, 1992No. B058074PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GATES, Acting P. J.

Paul A. Ricard, June Ricard, Glenn Ricard, Gary M. Ricard, Ronald J. Ricard, and Paul A. Ricard & Sons, Inc., appeal from the dismissal of their action for conspiracy to commit fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer since it had denied appellants’ request to add the identical claim to their complaint in a prior action against the same defendants. Appellants contend:

“I. The trial court erred by sustaining a demurrer to a legally sufficient complaint, n. This action is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel;…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Slater v. BlackwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Unruh v. Truck Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Panos v. Great Western Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Weiner v. Mitchell, Silberberg & KnuppCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  5. Lyons v. WickhorstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. Janis v. California State Lottery CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. County Sanitation District No. 2 v. County of KernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Connerly v. SchwarzeneggerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Henry v. CliffordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995

8 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