Legal Opinion
Cardinale v. Miller
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 8, 2014No. A132611; No. A133065PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SIGGINS, J.
Keith Knapp and his company Home Loan Service Corporation (CHL) tread a path to this court that is well worn by their various codefendants in Noreen Cardinale’s long-fought action arising from an abusive loan scheme. (See Cardinale v. Miller (May 17, 2010, Al25546) [nonpub. opn.] (Cardinale v. Miller 3); Cardinale v. Miller (Jan. 31, 2005, A100606) [nonpub. opn.]; see also Cardinale v. Fitz-Stephens (May 28, 2002, A093851) [nonpub. opn.].) After a jury found Knapp and CHL1 liable for *1023conspiring to engage in fraudulent transfers to avoid enforcement of Cardinale’s judgments…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1994
- California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- AILANTO PROPERTIES, INC. v. City of Half Moon BayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Jaffe v. PacelliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
3Cited by10 opinions
- Berger v. Varum, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Berger v. VarumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- G.F. Galaxy Corp. v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- Guo v. Moorpark Recovery Service, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
- MSY Trading Inc. v. Saleen Automotive, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2020
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.