Legal Opinion

Jones v. Noble

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 24, 1934No. Civ. 8832PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILLIS, J., pro tem.

This is an action to recover on a compromise agreement made by the attorneys of record representing appellants in an action previously commenced by respondents against appellants, other than Union Indemnity Company, for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by such appellants. Appellant Union Indemnity Company, which it was stipulated was public liability carrier for appellants The Prank Meline Company and Wailes-Smith Company, in its answer admits that it accepted respondents’ offer to compromise such personal injury litigation for $5,000, but alleges…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Treadwell v. NickelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Smith v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Westerfeld v. New York Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Preston v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Ross v. TaborCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Bice v. StevensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  2. Fresno City High School District v. DillonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Robinson v. HilesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Ross v. Frank W. Dunne Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. AbrahamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

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