Legal Opinion
Glassman v. McNab
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 4, 2003No. B157578PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CURRY, J.
When respondent Paul R. Glassman, an attorney, requested payment for his services from appellants Cecil McNab and Scirocco Partners, appellants sought arbitration of Classman’s claim pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq. The arbitrators subsequently issued an award in Glassman’s favor, and the trial court confirmed the award. Appellants contend that the trial court erred, arguing that the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction under Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., in determining that an attorney-client relationship existed between…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- DuBois v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Eternity Investments, Inc. v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- North Beverly Park Homeowners Ass'n v. BisnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- California School Employees Ass'n v. Bonita Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Peter L. Kaufman, Panish etc. v. Prospect Funding CA2/4California Court of Appeal · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.