Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Levy v. Firks

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 19, 1963No. Civ. 26623Published

1ConcurrenceFord, J.

I concur in the determination that the judgment should be affirmed. My reasons for that conclusion will be briefly stated.

In the second cause of action of the second amended complaint there is incorporated the following allegation of the first cause of action: “Defendants Firks, Alexander and King and some of the other defendants proceeded with the enterprise, acquired the real property, acquired the stock of *436Kingpin Lanes and ... created the entities contemplated by the joint venture and opened the enterprise for business; all, however, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs.” It is further…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeTothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Davis v. City of Santa AnaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. Salsbery v. RitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Anderson v. StansburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

8 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