Legal Opinion
Rushing v. Powell
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 27, 1976No. Civ. 2500PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BROWN (G. A.), P. J.
The defendants and cross-complainants, Dorothy Powell and Virginia Jehnzen doing business as El Monte Mobile Home Village, appeal from a judgment 1 entered in favor of plaintiff, Eric Rushing, and cross-defendants, Eric Rushing and Keith Hutchison, after a trial by the court sitting without a jury. The first cause of action is for the sum of $5,107.40, representing the amount due for services performed and materials furnished by plaintiff to the defendants pursuant to a written contract for the construction of a swimming pool. The second and third causes of action…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Freedland v. GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- In Re HainesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis WaterparkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Asdourian v. ArajCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Southland Mechanical Constructors Corp. v. NixenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Viking Pools, Inc. v. MaloneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Cory v. Golden State BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.