Legal Opinion

Meadows v. Emett & Chandler

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 3, 1948No. Civ. 16085; Civ. 16086PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

Two separate actions are here involved— one against a corporation, herein referred to as respondent, the other against the partnership comprised of the two stockholders of the corporation. The latter entity had been engaged in the insurance brokerage business since 1929 when it was organized as “Gillis, Emett and Chandler” and so continued to February, 1939, when “Gillis” was dropped from the corporate name. Its principal place of business was in Los Angeles but it maintained a branch office in San Francisco. Emett was the president and general manager of the corporation at all times prior to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Kirk v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Estate of BrysonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. McIllmoil v. Frawley Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Nulsen v. NulsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Meadows v. Emett & ChandlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. Wells Fargo Bank v. DowdCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Doria v. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Van Buskirk v. McClenahanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  5. Clauson v. Industrial Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966

3 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