Legal Opinion
Taylor v. Fields
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 11, 1986No. B009873PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KLEIN, P. J.
Plaintiff and appellant Flossie Taylor (Taylor) appeals from the granting of a summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Jean B. Fields (Jean).
The papers in the summary judgment motion disclosed Leo D. Fields (Leo), a married man, and Taylor never lived together, and had a meretricious relationship. No existing case law supports a contract theory of recovery based on such a fact situation. Therefore, the summary judgment is affirmed.
Procedural and Factual Background
Leo and Jean were married on April 20, 1930, in Alameda County, California. They lived together as…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Marvin v. MarvinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Chern v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Spellens v. SpellensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Larsen v. JohannesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Gray v. ReevesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Saldana v. Globe-Weis Systems Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Lebas Fashion Imports of USA, Inc. v. ITT Hartford Insurance GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Torres v. ReardonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Visueta v. General Motors Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Tri-Growth Centre City, Ltd. v. Silldorf, BurdmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.