Legal Opinion

Foltz v. Cogswell

California Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1890No. 12787PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

— This cause was submitted in Department Two, and the following opinion prepared by Gibson, 0.: —

“Assumpsit to recover for services rendered as an attorney and counselor at law.
“Plaintiff alleges, in her complaint, that, between the twenty-seventh day of January, 1883, and the ninth day of March, 1883, at the special instance and request of defendant, who promised to fully pay her for her professional services, ‘to wit, the sum of five thousand dollars/ she devoted her entire time and skill as a lawyer in the preparation of an act entitled ‘ An act authorizing and empowering the regents of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Miles v. ThorneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Bridges v. PaigeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  3. Timberlake v. CrosbySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1889

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Jogani v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Crawford v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Cullinan v. McColganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. BotsfordSupreme Court of Kansas · 1896
  5. Stroemer v. Van OrsdelNebraska Supreme Court · 1905

9 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