Legal Opinion

Maner v. Mydland

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 28, 1967No. Civ. 30324PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOX, J. *

Plaintiffs 1 seek to recover their investment in a stock promotion. Judgment was rendered in favor of Maner and Tepper, but in favor of defendants and against Bennett. Defendants made a motion for a new trial which was granted as to defendant Mydland but denied as to Jones and Lindsey. Maner and Tepper have appealed from the order granting Mydland a new trial, and Mydland has cross-appealed from the judgment in favor of Maner and Tepper. Bennett has appealed from the judgment in favor of defendant in his case.

In April 1961 defendants organized the A.V.T.A. Corporation (known as A VTA…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Norwood v. JuddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp.California Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Clejan v. ReismanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Eisenbaum v. Western Energy Resources, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  3. Walton v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Sandor v. Ruffer, Ballan & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API