Legal Opinion

Miller v. Lantz

California Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1937No. L. A. 15226PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, J.

This action was commenced June 16, 1930, to recover a balance due for services performed under a written contract. The defendant Charles Lantz, an attorney, was engaged in the trial of a case, and employed plaintiffs K. A. Miller and Herbert N. Ellis, attorneys, to assist him in the trial. The agreement was evidenced by a letter dated May 3, 1926, from Lantz to plaintiffs, reading in part as follows: “This is to advise you that I employ you as attorneys to assist me in the trial of the case of Broome v. Lantz, No. 10149 in the Superior Court of Ventura County and agree to pay you a retainer…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. ScarboroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Cooley v. Miller & LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Baker v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. American Building Maintenance Co. v. Indemnity Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Appalachian Insurance v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1989
  2. Sluis v. Betty W.California Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. Ades v. BrushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Berard Construction Co. v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. Vecki v. SorensenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

7 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