Legal Opinion
Waller v. Brooks
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 13, 1968No. Civ. 31806PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.
This is a case involving two separate actions which were consolidated for the purposes of trial. Since in the one action (No. 856,467) Ruth Irene Brooks is plaintiff and John A. Waller, Jr. is defendant and cross-complainant, and in the other action (No. 862,256), Waller 1 is plaintiff and Brooks is defendant and cross-complainant, we shall henceforth refer to the parties by name rather than as plaintiff and defendant.
In action No. 856,467 Brooks filed a complaint seeking recovery on a promissory note plus interest and attorney fees. Waller admitted liability as alleged in Brooks’ complaint…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Teel v. GaskillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Overton v. Vita-Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Walling v. KimballCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Nestle v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- People v. HamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- In Re Heidi T.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Anderson v. Citizens BankCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1987
- Trimont Land Co. v. Truckee Sanitary DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.