Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Quadri v. Alkayali | 03/09/2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | QUADRI v. ALKAYALI AKRAM QUADRI et al. , Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. AHMAD ALKAYALI et al. , Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-defendants Akram Quadri and Fatma Boukhari, who are married to each other (individual plaintiffs), and NeoCell Corporation against defendants and cross-complainants Ahmad Alkayali (Alkayali) and Terri Alkayali, finding the individual plaintiffs owned all the shares in NeoCell and defendants owned none. In the breach of contract count defendants pleaded that pursuant to the 2002 amendment 66 percent of the shares were transferred to Alkayali and plaintiffs breached that agreement by claiming Alkayali owned no shares. Alkayali was "intelligent and sophisticated" whereas Quadri who was 81 was less sophisticated and completely trusted Alkayali, so much so that he would sign anything Alkayali requested. But they fail to include evidence on which the court relied that Quadri would "sign any paper put in front of him [by Alkayali]" because he had "placed all of his faith and confidence in [him] . | ||
| Note: | The forgery of an employer's stock certificates to defraud a workers' compensation carrier played a role in a breach of contract suit about who actually owned a business, according to a decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal. | ||
| Citation: | G042758 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 37252011 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District | 04/19/2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Filed 4/19/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) . Â Â Â Â Â Â Â REBECCA MEGAN QUIGLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, . Â Â Â Â Â Â Â v. . Â Â Â Â Â Â Â GARDEN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. . Â Â Â Â Â Â Â C079270 . Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (Super. She sued, inter alia, defendants and respondents Garden Valley Fire Protection District, Chester Fire Protection District, and their employees Frank DelCarlo, Mike Jellison, and Jeff Barnhart for damages, claiming she was injured as a result of their negligence, a dangerous condition of public property, and defendantsâ failure to warn. The three men, all retired Forest Service employees, became employees of defendant local fire agencies Chester Fire Protection District and Garden Valley Fire Protection District in order to serve on NorCal 1. . Â Â Â Â Â Â We concur: . Â Â Â Â Â Â /s/ DUARTE, J. | ||
| Note: | |||
| Citation: | C079270 | ||
| WCC Citation: | Super. Ct. No. CV1000225 | ||
| Case Name: | Quinn v. State of California | 09/10/1975 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Case no. 23146 THOMAS QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent; INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Claimant and Respondent (In Bank. Plaintiff sued the state, which owned the construction site, alleging its negligence as the proximate cause of his injuries. California courts have long applied this principle of apportionment. Furthermore, we point out below that the Legislature has clearly referred to this general equitable precept in the statute before us. (See Lasky, Subrogation Under the California Workmen's Compensation Laws -- Rules, Remedies and Side [15 Cal. 3d 182] Effects (1972) 12 Santa Clara Law. | ||
| Note: | When an injury involves a negligent third party, the employer should bear his share of litigant's attorney fees due to the equitable principle of apportionment. | ||
| Citation: | 15 Cal.3d 162 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 32121975 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Quinn v. U.S. Bank | 06/06/2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | QUINN v. U. S. BANK NA ROBERT QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. BANK NA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Robert Quinn (plaintiff) is a former senior vice president of defendant U. S. Bank NA. Peatros was brought by a bank vice president who contended that Bank of America (bank) terminated her because of her race and age in violation of FEHA and other state laws. Two of the cases cited do not assist the Bank: Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (4th Cir. In the third case cited by the bank, Arrow v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (6th Cir. | ||
| Note: | A federal statute does not preempt bank officers from filing disability discrimination suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded. | ||
| Citation: | B226143 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 37722011 CA | ||
4 Results
- 1
