Legal Opinion
Haight, Brown & Bonesteel v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 27, 1991No. B057441PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FUKUTO, J.
Petitioner, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel (HBB), seeks a writ of mandate after the trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of real parties in interest (DCC partners).
Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel was a law partnership with its principal office in Santa Monica, California, and a branch office in Santa Ana, California. In March of 1988, seven of the partners departed the firm, established the law partnership of Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (DCC), and opened an office in Santa Monica, California.
HBB filed a four-count complaint, three counts of which…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Banerian v. O'MALLEYCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- La Jolla Village Homeowners' Ass'n v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Petrovich v. City of ArcadiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & MarcusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
- Howard v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C.Arizona Supreme Court · 2006
- Stevens v. Rooks Pitts and PoustAppellate Court of Illinois · 1997
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. MARINA BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.