Legal Opinion
Lucerne Country Club v. Beal
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 21, 1937No. Civ. 5722PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
—The plaintiff by this action sought to recover from the defendants the sum of $3,329.38. The de fendants in their answers denied any indebtedness to the plaintiff. In addition to filing answers denying the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint, the respective defendants filed counterclaims and cross-complaints. Save and except as to the defendant R J. Palmer, the judgments entered in this action are not involved upon this appeal.
In addition to his answer denying the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant R. J. Palmer filed a counterclaim and cross-complaint. In both the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Griffey v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Doolin v. Omnibus Cable Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
- Roberts v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
- Weaver v. Shell Oil Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
- Cox v. Tyrone Power Enterprises Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Secreto v. CarlanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Legg v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident of OhamaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.