Legal Opinion

Brooks v. Brooks

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 3, 1944No. Civ. 14107PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J. pro tem.

The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment which denied him any portion of the $3,630 he sought to recover from his wife, the defendant. The theory of plaintiff’s complaint was that the money had been paid under a contract void because against public policy, the contract being that the parties would get married, the defendant would continue to render to the plaintiff the domestic and nursing services she had been rendering as his housekeeper and practical nurse, and the plaintiff would continue to pay her the $80 a month he had been paying her for those services. The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dieterle v. BekinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Haruko Takeuchi v. SchmuckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Bank of Orland v. HarlanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Fitzpatrick v. UnderwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Ruth v. KroneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Day v. RosenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  2. Logan v. ForsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  3. Estate of BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  4. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
  5. Tiedje v. Aluminum Taper Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1956

4 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