Legal Opinion
Quigley v. Pet, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 28, 1984No. F000080PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WOOLPERT, J.
In this case, the plaintiffs have recovered substantial contract and tort damages arising from defendant’s bad faith activity in protesting contract terms. The case was tried and an appeal filed before the Supreme Court decided Seaman’s Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 752 [206 Cal.Rptr. 354, 686 P.2d 1158], We must deal with a jury instruction which subjected the defendant to tort liability and damages for the failure to “deal fairly and in good faith.”
Plaintiffs Wayne Quigley (Quigley) and Quigley Bros. Transportation, Inc. (Quigley Bros.)…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Ward v. TaggartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Masterson v. SineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Rawlings v. ApodacaArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Company, Ltd., and E-Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1995
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.