Oliver v. County of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, J.
Plaintiff Vincent Oliver (plaintiff) and plaintiffs in intervention Helix Information Services, Inc., and Michael Hesse (Helix and Hesse, respectively, or interveners) appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant County of Los Angeles (the County). In deciding the various motions for summary judgment filed by the parties, the trial court determined that a card game called “Newjack,” which was invented by plaintiff, is a form of another card game called “21.1" Penal Code section 330 prohibits the playing of 21 for Plaintiff and the interveners had filed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Price v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- City of Sacramento v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Sullivan v. FoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Walker v. MeehanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Assilzadeh v. California Federal BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Kelly v. First Astri Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Camargo v. Tjaarda DairyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.