Legal Opinion

Warner v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 24, 1953No. Civ. 19586PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.

The complaint herein alleges the following : Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company, Inc., defendant and respondent herein, publishes in its Central Section of the Los Angeles Extended Area telephone directory, the following: “Warner, Caryl atty, 639 S Spring—• TUkr 9171 Woodland Hills Office, 21042 Rios—DIamnd 85761”; immediately below, “Warner, Caryl Mrs. 1600 Westrly Ter — NOrmndy 22011”; and below that, “Warner Caryl Mrs. Warner Caryl atty 21042 Rios Wdlnd Hills — DIamnd 85761.” The “Mrs. Caryl Warner” first listed is the divorced wife of Caryl Warner, an attorney; plaintiff, the other…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bank of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Ambassador Petroleum Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Loock v. Pioneer Title Insurance and Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Child v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Freeman v. JerginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Miracle Adhesives Corp. v. Peninsula Tile Contractors' Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. County of Alameda v. CliffordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Edwards v. CurryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Hagan v. FairfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

3 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