Legal Opinion
Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 3, 1995No. G013719PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
California’s Franchise Investment Law was intended for precisely this case. The law’s statement of legislative intent declares that “California franchisees have suffered substantial losses where the franchisor or his representative has not provided full and complete information regarding the franchisor-franchisee relationship, the details of the contract between franchisor and franchisee, and the prior business experience of the franchisor.” (Corp. Code, § 31001.) And that is, indeed, what the plaintiffs have alleged here: an out-of-state franchisor, rather misleadingly…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Modern Computer Systems, Inc. v. Modern Banking Systems, Inc. Modern Banking Systems of Southern WisconsinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The American Arbitration AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- America Online, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Citizens for Open Access to Sand and Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- David Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.