Legal Opinion
Wiley v. Silsbee
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 22, 1934No. Civ. 8845PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIS, J., pro tem.
Respondent, an attorney, brought this action against appellant to recover for professional services. He stated three causes of action in his complaint, one on quantum meruit, one on stated account, and one on open book account. Judgment was entered in his favor on the first cause on quantum meruit, on findings sustaining that cause, but adverse to the other two causes.
At the trial it was established by evidence that on February 24, 1930, appellant in writing retained respondent as her attorney for the purpose of effecting a property settlement with her husband and also…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Higgins v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Newman v. FreitasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Theisen v. KeoughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Ayres v. LipschutzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Parsons v. SegnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Huskinson & Brown, Limited Liability Partnership v. WolfCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Hill v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Fair v. BakhtiariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- McCarthy v. SantangeloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Marshank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.