Legal Opinion

Lanz v. Goldstone

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 29, 2015No. A141694PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RICHMAN, Acting P. J.

— Appellant Peter Goldstone is a Santa Rosa attorney. So is respondent Brian P. Lanz. Lanz represented Hebe Garcia-Bolio (Bolio) in a Marvin action, 1 in connection with which Lanz had a contingency fee agreement. The Marvin action settled on the third day of trial, following which there soon arose a dispute as to the value of the settlement— and therefore Lanz’s fee. Lanz filed suit against Bolio, who failed to respond, and her default was taken. Goldstone became Bolio’s lawyer and, following relief from default, filed an answer and, as pertinent here, a…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert HafifCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Marvin v. MarvinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Arnold Eng'g Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. Medley Capital Corp. v. Sec. Nat'l Guaranty, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. Area 55 v. Nicholas & TomasevicCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
  5. Area 55 v. Nicholas & Tomasevic CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021

12 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