Legal Opinion

Carlton v. Quint

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 2, 2000No. B119887PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SCHNEIDER, J. *

Plaintiff and appellant Jack A. Carlton, individually and as the administrator of the estate of Elizabeth A. Carlton, 1 appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant and respondent Richard L. Quint and his professional corporation. 2

Carlton claims the judgment must be reversed because he was not properly served with the motion and did not receive proper notice of the summary judgment hearing. He also contends there is a triable issue of material fact as to every element of his legal malpractice cause of action against Quint. We conclude Carlton’s claims…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Union Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Tate v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  4. Thompson v. HalvonikCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  5. De Luca v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Towne v. HubbardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
  2. Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Thomson v. CanyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. Oiye v. FoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co. LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

24 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