Legal Opinion

Weintraub v. Soronow

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 22, 1931No. Docket No. 6551PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARCHBALD, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is based on an alleged contract with defendant whereby the former was to have been employed for a period of one year commencing January 18, 1925, as general manager of the latter’s furniture manufacturing establishment and to assist in financing said business. The first count alleges the contract to have been for an agreed compensation of $6,000 for services as general manager and $4,000 as a bonus for assistance in financing the business, or a total of $10,000 for the year; that the employment terminated February 8, 1926, and that no part…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wilson v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  2. Firth v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Olmstead v. DauphinyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Snyder v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1950
  2. People v. LoopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Rice v. California Lutheran HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Bohman v. BergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Mayfield v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936

7 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