Legal Opinion

REO BROADCASTING CONSULTANTS v. Martin

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 22, 1999No. B118068PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, J.

Plaintiffs REO Broadcasting Consultants (REO), Richard E. Oppenheimer (Oppenheimer), and Gilbert A. Cabot (Cabot) (collectively plaintiffs) sued defendant Michelle Edith Martin, also known as Michelle Wright (defendant), in superior court for breach of a contract whereby Cabot, through REO, a partnership composed of Cabot and Oppenheimer, was to render marketing and career consulting services to defendant, a country-western singer. In response, defendant filed a “petition to determine controversy” with the Labor Commissioner (the Commissioner), pursuant to Labor Code section…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. People v. SimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Slater v. BlackwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Armstrong v. ArmstrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Friedland v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Preston v. FerrerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  2. Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Styne v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

25 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