Legal Opinion

Muller v. Martin

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 3, 1953No. Civ. 15378PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD (Fred B.), J.

Plaintiff William Muller has appealed from an order in a partition suit which awarded a fee of $250 to the referee who conducted the sale of the property of the parties and $250 to defendant W. Knickerbocker as reasonable counsel fees expended or incurred for the common benefit.

In support of his appeal plaintiff claims (1) the order is not supported by any evidence, (2) the fees allowed were excessive, and (3) a counsel fee should have been awarded to plaintiff.

The record is in an unsatisfactory state. Plaintiff chose to present his appeal wholly on a settled statement. He…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cheney v. RicksIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Capuccio v. CaireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Libby v. KippCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Chavez v. ScullyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Girtman v. StarbuckSupreme Court of Florida · 1904

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Muller v. TannerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  2. Carver v. FosterSupreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  3. City & County of San Francisco v. MullerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Sullivan v. DorsaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. Swinson v. JarrattSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979

1 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