102 Cal.App.3d 786, 20361, Mendenhall v. Curtis

Citation: 102 Cal.App.3d 786, 162 Cal.Rptr. 569

Opinion Judge: [11] Tamura

Party Name: Mendenhall v. Curtis

Attorney: [7] Garrett & Dimino, Kenneth R. Garrett and Boyd F. Jensen II for Defendant and Appellant. [8] No appearance for Plaintiff. [9] Kegel & Tobin, C. John Reiner and Charles H. Carpenter for Intervener and Respondent.

Case Date: Tuesday February 26, 1980

Court: California Court of Appeals

Linked as:

Document options

Printable page
Email this

Extract

102 Cal.App.3d 786, 20361, Mendenhall v. Curtis

No longer available (Autolink)

See the full content of this document

This document cites

California - 24 Cal.2d 200, 18805, Baugh v. Rogers
California - 19 Cal.3d 862, 30651, County of San Diego v. Sanfax Corp.
California - 78 Cal.App. 215, Civ. 3049, City of Sacramento (A Municipal Corporation) v. Central California Traction Company (A Corporation)
California - 215 Cal.App.2d 215, 20913, Board of Administration, State Emp. Retirement System v. Ames
California - 38 Cal.App.3d 218, 42295, State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Williams

See all quotations