Legal Opinion

Bounds v. Figurettes, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 13, 1982No. Civ. 24623PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

STANIFORTH, J.

Plaintiffs Monroe and Eldra Bounds (Bounds) and Gene and Grace Hand (Hands) seek damages for fraud perpetrated upon them by the corporate defendants Figurettes, Inc., and Susan’s of California, Inc., through individual defendants Hi Hand (no relation to the plaintiffs Hands), Angela Serritella, Del Remme and other individually named codefendants (collectively called Figurettes). The fraudulent acts recited are both of the common law variety, to wit, a fraudulent inducement to enter a contractual relationship and a “per se” fraudulent operation of an “endless chain”…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Walsh v. WalshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
  2. Whole Living, Inc. v. TolmanDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2004
  3. Buchsbaum v. Digital Intelligence Systems, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
  4. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Amador Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
  5. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Amador Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019

3 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