Brydonjack v. Rieck
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
ROTH, J., pro tem.
Appellant’s assignor is an attorney at law. Respondent met the attorney socially on January 1, 1929, from which date their acquaintance flowered into friendship. The attorney called upon respondent, escorted her to cafes and clubs and accompanied her upon rides and visits to friends, all expenses involved being borne by respondent. During the period of this cordial relationship, respondent, undoubtedly impressed with the wholesome interest in her and in her business displayed by the attorney, confided in a general way her affairs and troubles to him. The attorney managed to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cooley v. Miller & LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Carlson v. LantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Elmore v. JohnsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Magee v. BrennemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Thornley v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
3Cited by13 opinions
- Fox v. PollackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Sloan v. StearnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Arden v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Bradner. v. VasquezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Lawrence v. TschirgiSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.