Legal Opinion

Sieck v. Hall

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 14, 1934No. Civ. No. 1040PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAINES, J., pro tem.

This action was brought to recover compensation additional to his regular salary as a salesman of gasoline, oils and grease, claimed to be due to the plaintiff and respondent Charles A. Sieck from the defendants and appellants under two several arrangements made ill the early months of 1928. Judgment was given in favor of plaintiff and respondent against all the defendants and appellants, but respondent now concedes that it cannot be supported by the evidence as against any of the defendants and appellants other than the Star & Crescent Oil Co., so that our discussion of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Frost v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Davis & Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  3. Roberts v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  4. Board of Commissioners (No. 2) v. YoungerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Sutliff v. E. Seidenberg, Stiefel, & Co.California Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Oettinger v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Hunter v. SparlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Dougherty v. California Kettleman Oil Royalties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Newberger v. RifkindCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. Aubry v. GoldhorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988

4 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