Legal Opinion

Hooper v. Barranti

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1947No. Civ. 13376PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OGDEN, J. pro tem.

Fred E. Hooper was the sole owner and operator of an on-sale retail liquor tavern business under a license issued in his name. He entered into a verbal agreement, confirmed shortly thereafter by a written agreement, of association with Joseph P. Barranti whereby they agreed to become equal partners in the operation of the business. Barranti agreed to pay to Hooper the sum of $1,500 for a one-half interest in the business at the rate of $100 per month. It was agreed that the on-sale liquor license, under which the business had been operated by Hooper and under which it was to…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Wise v. RadisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  3. Chateau v. SinglaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Denning v. TaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Shunken v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Norwood v. JuddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  4. Magill v. LewisNevada Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Prince v. HartingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

31 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