Legal Opinion
Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball Sons
California Supreme Court
Decided March 19, 1957No. S. F. 19563PublishedCited by 208 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, J.
Plaintiffs George W. Lewis and Paul C. Queen are engaged in the contracting business as the partnership of Lewis and Queen, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff. Defendant Ball Sons, hereinafter referred to as defendant, is also in the contracting business.
*145In June, 1949, defendant was awarded two contracts by the state, each contract for the construction of a separate section of the Hollywood Parkway. Defendant then entered into four contracts with plaintiff. With respect to the work to be done on each section of the parkway, there were two contracts between plaintiff and defendant. The first…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- John E. Rosasco Creameries, Inc. v. CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Loving & Evans v. BlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Carter v. Seaboard Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
- Norwood v. JuddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by208 opinions
- MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Gerhard v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Bryan Builders Supply v. MidyetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis WaterparkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
203 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.