Legal Opinion
Huston v. Schohr
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 13, 1944No. Civ. 6992PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.
Plaintiff and respondent commenced an action against defendant and appellant upon a promissory note in the principal, sum of $15,000, executed on December 29, 1941, in favor of the law firm of Huston, Huston & Huston, and assigned by said firm to respondent.
Appellant filed an answer setting forth that said law firm of Huston, Huston & Huston had been her attorneys for more than six years prior to the date of the execution of said promissory note; that the services rendered by them were of a value not in excess of $3,000; that respondent Robert W. Huston, acting for said…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Peters v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
- Lowe v. San Francisco & Northwestern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Parra v. CleaverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Coats v. HathornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. Keith Railway Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
- Luis v. CavinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- People v. AdamsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Kuehn v. LowthianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Carlson, Collins, Gordon & Bold v. BanducciCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.