Legal Opinion

Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Southern California Edison Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 15, 1989No. D009059PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TODD, Acting P. J.

Automatic Sprinkler Corporation of America, a division of Figgie International, Inc. (Automatic), appeals after the trial court granted a summary judgment for Southern California Edison Company (Edison) in Automatic’s action to enforce a mechanic’s lien and to impose liability on Edison for failing to require its general contractor on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) to post a payment bond as required for public entities in the construction of public works pursuant to Civil Code section 3247.

Automatic contends the summary judgment was erroneously…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Insurance Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1987
  4. Petersen v. W. T. Grant Co.California Court of Appeal · 1974
  5. States Shingle Co. v. KaufmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Virgil Barham v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  2. Gayle Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Federal Savings And Loan Insurance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  3. Koudmani v. Ogle Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Gayle Manufacturing Co. v. Federal Savings & Loan InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  5. L.A.M. Construction, Inc. v. KrizAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API