Legal Opinion
Marcus v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 18, 1977No. Civ. 17977PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAUFMAN, J.
The petitioners filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of an arbitration proceeding which was ordered pursuant to a motion to compel arbitration. The motion to stay proceedings was denied. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate. We have concluded that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 1 required the granting of the motion to stay proceedings. Accordingly, we grant a peremptory writ.
Real party in interest, Mark Tarson (hereinafter real party), apparently purchased a beauty salon franchise from Cut & Curl, Inc. and entered into a written franchise agreement…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Dillard v. McKnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Minton v. CavaneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Lynch v. GlassCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2011
- J&K Cement Construction, Inc. v. Montalbano Builders, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1983
- Fridl v. Cook, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)1995
- Brock v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.