Legal Opinion

Newman v. Freitas

California Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 1900No. S.F. No. 1446PublishedCited by 59 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

The appellant, as plaintiff, sues as assignee of a contract for contingent fees in a divorce suit. The contract in question is as follows:

“I hereby retain and employ J. H. Long, Esq., as my attorney, to act for me in all matters arising or growing out of any divorce proceedings or separation with my husband, M. T. Freitas, or in regard to the settlement of my community property rights, or to act for me in regard to any settlement, compromise, or other disposition of any agreement or settlement which may take place between myself and my said husband.
“I am about to commence proceedings for…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Jordan v. WestermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Agard v. ValenciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  4. Bruck v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Loveren v. LoverenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Pereira v. PereiraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Deyoe v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Grannis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Moss v. MossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. In Re Marriage of DawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

54 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