Legal Opinion

Cassetta v. Del Frate

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 24, 1931No. Docket No. 7897PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

Plaintiffs employed Mr. Gloria and Mr. Hennessy as their attorneys to prosecute an action in tort for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. After the suit was filed plaintiffs moved for leave to substitute other counsel. Their motion was granted and Mr. Gloria and Mr. Hennessy appeal upon a bill of exceptions.

The contract of employment was in writing. - The parties agreed to pay their counsel fifty per cent “of all amounts recovered by suit or settlement or compromise and said assignment shall be a lien on any judgment or any amount recovered by judgment or compromise or settlement”.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kirk v. CulleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Gage v. AtwaterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Todd v. Superior Court of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Tracy v. RingoleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Stapp v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
  2. Isrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. NakanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Franklin v. FranklinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Wagner v. SariottiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

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