Legal Opinion

Marshall v. Packard-Bell Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 15, 1951No. Civ. 18411PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

From a judgment predicated upon the sustaining of defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint as amended in an action to recover damages and for an accounting, plaintiff appeals.

Facts

Plaintiff’s complaint as amended was in three counts, the first two based upon the theory of “illegal business compulsion,” and seeking damages therefor, while the third count sought an accounting and was predicated upon the theory that plaintiff had entrusted money to defendants by duress.

The substance of the complaint as amended was: that during the month of November, 1945, plaintiff and defendant…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Tynan v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Metropolis Tr. & Sav. Bank v. MonnierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Lambert v. McKenzieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Morrow v. BarkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Agnew v. ParksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. Adams v. PaulCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Skrbina v. Fleming Companies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Crow v. PEG Construction Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Hornig v. HornigMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978

20 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