Legal Opinion

Cotten v. Perishable Air Conditioners

California Supreme Court

Decided September 3, 1941No. L. A. 17943PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PULLEN, J., pro tem.

The defendant, Perishable Air Conditioners, was a copartnership composed of Cross and Carroll. Plaintiff, Charles D. Gotten, a minor, was an employee of said partnership, and on November 13, 1937, was severely injured while acting in the course of his employment.

Thereafter, an action was filed by Carroll against his partner Cross for a dissolution of the partnership, for an accounting, and for the appointment of a receiver. A receiver was appointed December 15, 1937, and on January 17, 1938, an order was made dissolving the partnership. On March 18, 1938, Charles D. Gotten…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Riehle v. MargoliesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Pringle v. . WoolworthNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  3. Gaboury v. Central Vermont Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
  4. Stokes v. . Hoffman House of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  5. Thomas v. NathanSupreme Court of Florida · 1913

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Leff v. GunterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Principal Mutual Life Insurance v. Vars, Pave, McCord & FreedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Scaglione v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
  4. Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1993
  5. Redman v. WaltersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

19 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