Legal Opinion
Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 8, 1987No. Docket Nos. B001373, B014209, B023085PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, J. *
In Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 200 [194 Cal.Rptr. 180] (hereafter RMS I), we considered the obligations of dissolving partners of a partnership at will to the other partners for carrying on business that had been an asset of the partnership. We concluded that under the facts of the case as presented, the dissolving partners owed a fiduciary duty to the former partners with respect to such business. We also held that this duty is not dependent upon whether the client had retained the dissolving partners before or after the dissolution. In either…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Pashley v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Raedeke v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Meehan v. SHAUGHNESSY COHENMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- Wolf v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. PoleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Heller v. Pillsbury Madison & SutroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Horning v. ShilbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.