Legal Opinion

Riccomini v. Pierucci

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 18, 1921No. Civ. No. 3389PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon the award of three arbitrators appointed by the parties pursuant to a stipulation made by them in open court.

Following the dissolution, by mutual consent, of a co-partnership that had existed between plaintiff and defendant, this action was brought for "an accounting. Plaintiff and defendant had married sisters. For the purpose of avoiding such additional intensification of family discord as might be engendered by a continuation of their litigation in court, the parties, when the case was called for trial, entered into a stipulation Avhereby they…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tyson v. WellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
  2. Goodrich v. HulbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
  3. Blodgett v. PrinceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  4. Fisher v. TownerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1840
  5. Cheney v. MartinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Carpenter v. BloomerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
  2. INTERNAT'L BROTH. OF TEAM. v. Bergen-Hudson Roofing Supply Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
  3. Cecil v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Dulien Steel Products Inc. of Wash. v. M/S THE OGEKADistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1956
  5. Bole v. Nationwide InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

1 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