Legal Opinion

Endicott v. Rosenthal

California Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1932No. Docket No. L.A. 11441PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A hearing was granted in this case after decision by the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Upon further consideration, we are satisfied that the opinion of the said court, delivered by Mr. Justice pro tern. Jamison, correctly disposes of the issues, and we adopt it as the opinion of this court. It reads as follows:

“This is an action brought by plaintiff to recover from defendants commission upon the gross wholesale and retail business done by defendants since April 6, 1925, under a written contract. Defendants Harry Rosenthal and Robert Cowan, by their amended…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. Trenton Potteries Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Poultry Producers of Southern California, Inc. v. BarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Pacific Wharf & Storage Co. v. Standard American Dredging Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Morey v. PaladiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Herriman v. MenziesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Speegle v. Board of Fire UnderwritersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  3. State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

17 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