Legal Opinion
Goldstein v. Lees
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 28, 1975No. Civ. 43869PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEPHENS, Acting P. J.
On January 31, 1972, the law firm of Charles H. Goldstein, Joseph F. Gentile, and Norman H. Kirshman filed its amended complaint claiming money due for the reasonable value of legal services rendered by Norman H. Kirshman. Defendants Alan B. Lees and Florenza Lees contended at trial that the monies prayed for in the complaint exceeded the amount specified in an oral agreement between Alan Lees and Norman Kirshman. Plaintiffs contended that there was no such agreement, and the trial judge agreed. The defendants have appealed.
The basic question presented in this…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Garner v. WolfinbargerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304California Court of Appeal · 1964
- EF Hutton & Company v. BrownDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1969
- D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1979
- Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & ScheetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- In re LTV Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1981
- Reena Frailich v. Sandra DisnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.